final evaluation report - next · the final evaluation report will reflect the results and...

FINAL EVALUATION

REPORT

August 2015

The Programme is co-funded by the European Union, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

1

The report was prepared by: In the context of:

European University of Tirana,

Subcontracted by Regional Council of Shkodra

In partnership with:

This project is co-funded by the European Union,

Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

DISCLAMER:

This document has been produced by Foundation Partnership for Development in cooperation with other NEXT Project partners, in the context of the NEXT Project and with the financial assistance of the EU -IPA Adriatic Cross Border Cooperation Programme. The contents and the opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting any position or opinion of

the EU or the IPA Adriatic Cross-Border Cooperation Programme authorities.

August 2015


2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4

1. Objectives and Contents of the final evaluation ................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Analysis of project strategy .............................................................................................................................. 9

1.2 Analysis of governance and procedures ......................................................................................................... 12

1.3 Analysis of financial performance .................................................................................................................. 13

1.4 Analysis of project outputs and results .......................................................................................................... 15

2. Short Overview of the Project Implementation ............................................................................................... 16

2.1 Overview of the Progress of the Project, October 2014-August 2015. .......................................................... 18

2.1.1 Key activities ................................................................................................................................................... 18

2.1.2 Problems encountered and solutions adopted/proposed ............................................................................. 25

2.1.3 Analysis of financial performance .................................................................................................................. 28

3. Methodological approach ................................................................................................................................... 54

3.1 The approach and methodology of the evaluation report ............................................................................. 55

3.2 Strategy-Overview of the evaluation activities .............................................................................................. 58

3.2.1 Methodological Challenges ............................................................................................................................ 60

3.2.2 LOG FRAME ..................................................................................................................................................... 61

3.3 Measuring the activities of the project .......................................................................................................... 64

3.4 TIME TABLE WORKS ........................................................................................................................................ 66

3.5 Monitoring and Self-Evaluation Report .......................................................................................................... 70

4. Analysis of governance and procedures ............................................................................................................. 72

4.1 The partnership composition. ........................................................................................................................ 72

4.2 The organizational structure and the distribution of responsibilities. ........................................................... 81

4.3 The implementing mechanisms and procedures. .......................................................................................... 98

4.4 Project information flows and communication tools ................................................................................... 106


3

5. Analysis of financial performance ..................................................................................................................... 112

5.1 Project financial framework ......................................................................................................................... 112

6. Analysis of project results ................................................................................................................................. 122

6.1 Analysis of the Indicators System ................................................................................................................. 122

6.2 Evaluation of project outputs and results .................................................................................................... 134

6.3 NEXT-IS perspective of the on line platform ................................................................................................ 146

6.4 Analyses of Project Strategy ......................................................................................................................... 152

7. Annexes. Response to Evaluation Questions .................................................................................................... 161

Annex 1 – Evaluation Team Work Plan ...................................................................................................................... 161

ANNEX 2. Matrix 1: European Union ......................................................................................................................... 165

Evaluation Criteria for the Evaluation of External Assistance ................................................................................... 165

ANNEX 3. Matrix 2: European Union ......................................................................................................................... 167

Evaluation Indicators for the Evaluation of External Evaluation ............................................................................... 167

Annex 4. Questionnaire: Targeted Stakeholders relevant to the project activities .................................................. 168


4

PREFACE

The Adriatic countries borders have been for many years deepening the national

differences between those countries. However, today they represent the solid

grounds for overcoming those contrasts, opening thus new opportunities of

cooperation especially in the field of research, innovation and technology transfer.

But those fields are facing some challenges nowadays, due to globalization process,

emerging of new pervasive products and technologies and lack of financial support.

From a situation like this, a conclusion emerges that research and innovation can

be successful only if it occurs in large collaborative systems and networks, through

interaction of various actors with different but complementary competences.

Consistent with the objective of IPA Adriatic’s Measure 1.1 Research and

Innovation to "encourage innovation and technology transfer through the creation

of networks between the business, institutional and academic community", the

project “Collaborative platform to support research and technology transfer”

(NEXT) was designed with intention of creating collaborative platform which would

work as the "aggregation element" to support innovation and technology transfer

in the Countries of the Adriatic area.

In order to achieve its strategic objective, the NEXT envisages four crucial steps:

To promote, expand and consolidate, in qualitative and quantitative terms,

the cooperation among Research institutes, enterprises and researchers;

To test mechanisms to support the research and technology transfer

system in the area;


5

To represent a qualified interlocutor with institutional stakeholders in view

of an enlarged R&I governance;

To embody a competitive partner in research and technology transfer at the

area level and internationally.

The main goal of the NEXT project is to create collaborative platform to support

innovation and technology transfer in the Adriatic area countries, through:

Defining the map of activities and actors of scientific research in each

territory involved;

Implementing an interactive online platform to facilitate and multiply the

exchanges among the actors of innovation;

Providing a range of services to support the relationships among the actors

involved;

Promoting investment opportunities in favor of research and technology

transfer;

To provide guidelines for the development of coordinated policies to

support innovation;

Giving visibility to excellence in the field of research and innovation;

Capitalizing the experience and the results gained to give continuity to the

collaborative platform.

What differs the NEXT Project from other similar initiatives is an original and

comprehensive combination of services (online platform for information sharing,

access to common services, etc.) and material services/products provided directly

to partners, SMEs, research and technology transfer centers, institutions.


6

The final evaluation report will reflect the results and conclusions of the evaluation

of the project NEXT of IPA Adriatic CBC Program 207-2013 carried out by Regional

Council of Shkodra, through the subcontractor European University of Tirana. The

aim of the UET is to examine if the capacity development activities of Marche

Regional Authority-Innovation with their partners and final beneficiaries have

actually been successful. In other words, the aim of this evaluation is: “The

strategies regarding innovation and competitiveness”. The evaluation also assesses

the relevance, coherence, efficiency and sustainability of the interventions of

Marche Regional Authority-Innovation regarding the partners. We also looked for

indications of the effects and impact of the strategies and the advantages these

bring to the final beneficiaries.

The evaluation has been strongly focused on the learning aspect: in this respect the

evaluation contributes towards a greater knowledge of its partners, especially on

the level of cooperation between them. It formulates concrete recommendations

that will further support that learning aspect.

The evaluation has been taken place in three major phases in the period from

October 2014 to June of 2015:

− phase 1: drawing up a methodological note;

− phase 2: documentary study and overview of 11 partners regarding innovation

strategies;

− phase 3: analysis and drafting of the final report and restitutions;


7

1. OBJECTIVES AND CONTENTS OF THE FINAL EVALUATION

The final evaluation report will reflect the results and conclusions of the evaluation of the project

NEXT of IPA Adriatic CBC Program 207-2013 carried out by Regional Council of Shkodra, Albania

through the Evaluation subcontracted team from the European University (UET) of Tirana,

Albania.

The final evaluation of NEX Project’s performance has been oriented towards the analysis of

projects results in terms of achievement and objectives (outputs and expected results through

indicators’ analysis), highlighting strengths and possible weaknesses of project implementation,

related bottlenecks as well as measures taken to tackle them.

In particular, the final evaluation will carry out the monitoring process of the Project

Implementation October 2014- August 2015:

The evaluation phase, has been conducted taking into consideration:

the analysis of project’s achievements presented in the last 1st-5th Project Progress

Report;

a short overview of the outputs and results are enclosed within the present document,

has considered the project’s advancements reported within the web site, and partners

Progress Report (till 31st August 2015).

In all phases of the implementation of the project, after further examination of external and

internal coherence of the project, greater importance has been given to the analysis of financial

performances in order to understand financial flows and mechanisms as well as main criticalities

encountered during project implementation through the analysis of Programme Management

Information System (M.I.S.) platform’s financial data. Furthermore, project organizational


8

structures and procedural and informative flows among Project Partners has been taken into

account in the evaluation path, considered as a prerequisite to reach expected results, both

material and immaterial. The latter are deemed of greater importance within the framework of

a cooperation Programme.

At this stage relevant project partners has been involved in the evaluation activity, as explained

in the following Chapter. The contents of the final evaluation enclosed in the present Report, as

underlined within the “Evaluation Work Plan”, are explained in below.

Analysis of the Project’s Strategy

Analysis of the Financial Performance

Analysis of Governance and Procedures

Analysis of the Project Outputs and Results

For each of the above mentioned issues, a synthesis of contents and conclusions as well as the Evaluator’s recommendations are presented in the following pages.

All investment proposals need to be evaluated if they compete for resources, all projects and

programs have to be monitored for effective implementation, meeting deadlines and ensuring

discipline in spending, purchasing and so on, all projects and programs must be evaluated during

and after completion to ensure that direct and social objectives are achieved and this has been

the moto for the Evaluation team of NEXT Project.


9

1.1 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT STRATEGY

Context Analysis’ evaluation activities put in evidence, the achievements of the project’s strategic objectives:

Promotion, expand and consolidation, in qualitative and quantitative terms, of the cooperation among Research Institutes, Enterprises and Researchers.

The testing mechanisms of supporting the research and technology transfer system in the

area.

Representation of a qualified interlocutor with institutional stakeholders in view of an

enlarged R&I governance.

A competitive partner to be embodied in research and technology transfer at the area

level and internationally.

What differs the NEXT from other similar initiatives is an original and comprehensive combination

of services (online platform for information sharing, access to common services, etc.) and

material services/products provided directly to partners, SMEs, research and technology transfer

centers, institutions.

As a result of conducted context analysis and involvement of relevant actors in the area of

innovations, "NEXT open book" have been developed as a repository that will be continuously

updated by public and private research and technology transfer structures. For each involved

territory, a summary report "NEXT trend" has been produced providing the insight into

technological capacity levels, research and innovation results, investment opportunities and

public policies support. The purpose of this action, in relation to the overall project objectives, is

to emphasize the context of research and technology needs and perspectives of particular

regions of the cross‐border cooperation. This element represents a preparatory stage for the

creation and maximization of synergies and opportunities in the area of research and

development, taking into account the specificities of the different countries and territories.


10

Both "NEXT open book" and "NEXT trend" are an excellent mechanism used to identify and

promote existing countries capacities, as well as to facilitate interaction and linking the different

research actors. The Next web online platform, increased the collaboration between the two

upper reporting platforms and simplified it through enabling establishment and strengthening of

supply chains and cluster and attracted investments. For promotion of investment opportunities,

it is implemented already the platform-based online services "NEXT Box", including promotion of

patents and supporting actions for spin-offs and research groups for submission to potential

investors, as "NEXT Investment booster", in the meantime the feasibility study "NEXT Suite" have

been developed as well verifying the future sustainability of the initiative.

NEXT policy is to maintain an effective and efficient quality assurance process planned and developed in conjunction with all management and staff functions and stakeholders, outlined in a series of policies and procedures (including external contracts, regulations and codes of practice) which are designed to eliminate deficiencies and inaccuracies and to ensure high quality standards. The assurance of quality is fundamental for all work undertaken by NEXT Project and should be implemented by all partners in their work. To that effect, NEXT have realized and succeed on the following:

Maintaining consistency in work method throughout in accordance with set policies, procedures, regulations and codes of practice and without any significant deviation.

Ensuring that all policies, procedures, relevant regulations and codes of practice are

implemented and systematically reviewed to reflect NEXT’s values.

Regularly monitoring and measuring the quality of its work methods, outputs and outcomes

with a view to ensuring high quality standards, best value and continuous improvement.

The NEXT project arises from the considerations on the role of innovation, transnational

networks and cooperation as levers of national economic development and, more generally, of

the increase in competitive capacity of enterprises through better connections with the

innovation circuits.

The challenges that the project intends to address are significant and they are based on some

issues/perspectives/conditions/opportunities such as, regarding research and technology

transfer:


11

Research and technology transfer development at the level of individual regions/Countries

often leads to too high investments that need to be done on a large scale for determining

significant results.

In order to maximize the "value for money" of these activities, synergies and networks can

be developed to promote joint researches and the connections with the business community

in the cooperation area.

Sharing the risks with the EU and the capitalization of the benefits at the local level represent

a great opportunity to enhance the competitiveness of the area through research and

technology transfer.

The creation/availability of a sufficient "critical mass" (skills, resources, actors, etc.) in

relevant scientific-technological areas is fundamental to address and support the great

challenges in the cooperation area, today and in the future.

Cooperation and networking projects such as NEXT can support the adoption of new cultural

and operational approaches in the field of research and innovation and consequently the

development of new skills and professional opportunities in the regional contexts of the

beneficiary Countries.

Project’s outputs seem to be sustainable, very clear and wide comprehensive, well connected to

Work Packages and contributing to gain expected results. Main evaluator’s recommendations

concerns project internal coherence, with a view to a future implementation of project: specific

objectives should be extended, avoiding risks of repetition and overlapping among them and

direct links with expected results and outputs should be stressed. Moreover, operational

objectives should be set. Logical framework might be built through the drafting of a SWOT

analysis, connecting in a way-to-way objective, results and outputs, as well as comprising an

adequate set of indicators able to efficaciously monitor advancements, involving all partners in

its settlement. In the view of a future project it is also suggested to better deepen the equal

opportunity issue, planning and consequently implementing measures/tools able to tackle this

subject.


12

1.2 ANALYSIS OF GOVERNANCE AND PROCEDURES

As far as the partnership composition is concerned, the project shows great balances, considering

almost the equal level of minimum of two representatives per Country Partner except Serbia and

there is equal as well distribution between being public or private body or state/private

Universities and there is no predominance of public subjects among private ones. In order to

ensure an efficacious “joint implementation” and to promote a wider participation of all partners

from all territories, it has been at the advantages of the project to invest one or two partners per

each country involved in the project with the responsibility of at least one WP and leaded through

the best partner with a long period managing such project the Lead Partner Marche Region. A

common knowledge platform and a shared approach as regarding duties as well as a common

management are ensured by common documents: Subsidy Contract, its Annex I and the

Partnership Agreement.

Reporting Activities and consequential financial ones are at the project level within the Project

Progress Report and at Partner level, within the Progress Report. These documents clearly apply

the Lead beneficiary principle, responsible for the financial management and the implementation

of the project on a whole; moreover, they defines activities, terms of co‐financing and duties

related to activities reports.

Concerning project’s organizational structure, a Steering Committee has been established

through which the partners have been enabled to jointly develop the project, making decisions

and addressing activities to be done in a common way. At times, partner’s activities have also

been organized within working groups having led to the achievement of a high‐quality “joint

implementation. As far as “joint staffing” is concerned, it has been ensured by the detection of

a Project Manager, Financial Manager and either a Communication Manager supporting the

whole project structures and activities. Considering the distribution of WP’s management

responsibilities among partners it is possible to state that the “joint implementation” level of

cooperation has been in a very good level considerable in comparison with other Adriatic are


13

Projects implemented during the same period as Next Project implementation time. As for

communication activities, partners have used as internal and external communication

instrument the project website but apart from data related to single partner’s dissemination

activities, the analysis do not highlights a communication critical point at project level towards

the broader public contrary the situation is the opposite slowly.

1.3 ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

In every Project since the beginning and during the implementation phase the focus has been all

the time on the financial and administrative aspects through managing to avoid expenditure

reporting errors and setting up of project change internal procedures. Expected Result most of

the time is improving of administrative and financial management of the project by the partners.

In depth analysis of the JTS recommendations for the NEXT project emerged since the beginning

with a particular focus on Project partners’ common errors during the reporting of expenditures

(analysis of problems of each PP and possible solutions), the new JTS Procurement Legal Guide

and PMCM and how to set the project change internal procedure have been mentioned and been

implemented properly to not follow the same errors as below.

The most frequent errors during the all phases of the implementation of a project:

1. Non Compliance with Procurement rules

2. Inflated Project Cost

3. Activities already funded from other sources

4. Charging costs to a project already used in another EU funded project

5. Claiming for payments incurred outside the eligibility period

6. Costs not allowed according to PMCM.

7. Incorrectly calculated overheads/staff salaries.


14

8. Other(detailed list): inadequate exchange rate, missing documents

Activity report not being uploaded on MIS

Activity report unsigned by the LB

List of expenditure is missing

Discrepancies in total amounts reported (amounts indicated in Progress Report,

Activity Report and List of Expenditure)

No Fiscal Invoice

Reported in the wrong Budget Line

From financial data analyzed, not always the budget allocated per partner has had a

correspondence with the same partner’s capacity of financial contribution’s commitment.

What’s more, all partners have shown disappointing results within many aspects of expenses

management. A scarce capacity of some partners to plan efficiently their activities of

expenditures reporting and declaration has to be underlined too. From the analysis of the flows

of both reimbursements and pre‐financing, such an aspect had been really improved thanks to

the intensive activity of application for reimbursement carried out by the Lead Partner since the

beginning and even at the final stage of project implementation. This improvement had avoid

the potential financial risk highlighted and mentioned from Lead Partner time to time and made

evident to all partners.

In any case, the partners experience on financial management shows that, especially for NEXT

Project, it has been planned and activated, since the beginning of the project implementation,

an efficient and efficacious management and monitoring system which envisaged since the

beginning a precise analysis of financial activities and provided the project with a Financial

Manager and a dedicated staff per partners so as to capitalize professional experiences and

enhance the sustainability of mid and long term results.


15

1.4 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT OUTPUTS AND RESULTS

For what concerns indicators’ analysis, it has to be underlined the projects’ indicators coherence

with Program’s indicators, which gives support in assessing the results reached by IPA Adriatic

CBC as a whole. For each indicator, a target value is identified, moreover, data sources are not

specified for each indicator. The application of the S.M.A.R.T. criteria methodology to output

indicators enabled the evaluator to detect the high level of measurability, specificity and

availability of data to be monitored and the punctual definition of indicators’ temporal bounds.

Nevertheless, some indicators are neither specific nor relevant, and the number of indicators, in

some cases is too high to monitor efficaciously project activities’ advancements. Also for result

indicators, part of indicators appear difficult to measure and more similar to objectives/activities

than to indicators. In the meantime the project had to consider any impact indicator as well.

As far as project’s results are concerned, the analysis shows very good performances, within the

framework of WP1 all foreseen outputs have been implemented and results have been

successfully reached, also coordination, communication and benchmarking activities carried out

within WP1 and WP2 show positive performances with good‐quality impacts on the whole

project, very often higher than expectations (targets). Marketing activities, developed within the

framework of WP2“Communication and Dissemination” demonstrate a perfectible capacity in

the realization of activities and in promoting project results.

Project’s approach and results obtained will guarantee both the repeatability of cooperation

activities in other territories, regions, sectors or Programmes and the sustainability of the

partnership within other Programmes/projects, involving even more heterogeneous subjects and

territories. To this respect the main evaluator suggestion regards the importance to consider

NEXT Project as the basis of future level project implementation of innovative approaches for

further regional/territorial cooperation, and for institutional building in order to experience

future initiatives with particular emphasis on Adriatic Ionian Macro‐Region’s development

opportunities.


16

2. SHORT OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

NEXT intended and created a collaborative platform to support innovation and technology

transfer in the Countries of the Adriatic area. The project has been promoted by 11 partners from

six Countries: Italy, Croatia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro and the

representatives of different interests and positions of the actors of innovation: Universities,

Regional Development Agencies, Chamber of Economy and Local Authorities.

The NEXT project promoted and achieved successfully through the implementation phases and

outputs of the project the development of territorial knowledge management activities, aimed

and made more explicit and formal the organization of the relations through which enterprises,

universities, and research centers exchanged information in the traditional productive systems.

The borders of Adriatic Countries, represent nowadays concrete grounds for offering:

new opportunities in the field of research, innovation and technology transfer,

new and main challenges that will increasingly be switch to the next larger Europe area, managing diversity and competitiveness and maintaining cohesion.

The need for the innovation policy aiming to produce new forms of collaboration between small

and medium-sized enterprises especially, in the technology area rather than in the productive

and commercial ones.

The distinctive and effective innovation that distinguished NEXT is an original mix of virtual

services (online platform for information sharing, access to common services) and material

services, products provided directly to partners, SMEs, research and technology transfer centers,

institutions.

The dimension of the 'cross border' cooperation amplifies and facilitates the development of

innovation policies based on processes of knowledge capitalization and accumulation. Innovation

processes and policies at the local, regional level normally produce "spillover" effects towards

neighboring territories.


17

On the other hand, joining a transnational technological cooperation platform produces

immediate multiplier effects of the outcomes of local, regional innovation policies. The physical

and geographical dimension of the Adriatic regions can often prevent or limit major economic

investments in the field of technology transfer, which instead require a critical mass of projects,

initiatives, enterprises and capitals.

From this point of view, cross-border cooperation, through the access to international networks,

creates the appropriate economic conditions. The international and global nature of many

innovative entrepreneurial initiatives (e.g. renewable energy, sustainable transports) make cross-

border network a more interesting and attractive subject compared to individual regional

administrative units.


18

2.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRESS OF THE PROJECT,

OCTOBER 2014-AUGUST 2015.

2.1.1 KEY ACTIVITIES

Project activities developed so far and a specific description of the key activities implemented

within the period concerned by the last Project Progress (1st part 10-2014 till 04-2015 and 2nd

part 05-2015 till 08-2015) report are as follows:

1. 5th Steering Committee meeting, Kragujevac, Serbia on 20th – 21st November 2014.

It was developed as per the standard Steering Committee procedures:

Preparation and sharing of the SC Meeting agenda determining participants,

objectives, topics.

Preparation and signature of the attendance participants sheet

Drafting the minutes of meeting with details of discussion of different topics of the

agenda and concluded with the conclusions.

The main conclusions of this Steering Committee:

The Next project is coming into the final phase of its implementation.

The final version of the information system “NEXT-IS” completed, and ready for further steps to be proceed:

- the population part by local stakeholders (start-ups, RTCCs, “innovators”).

- uploaded with information (mostly with big-data) regarding projects and market opportunities.


19

- inter-connected with other databases, systems, web pages by sharing “open data” regarding the innovation sectors and fields.

NEXT Blog ready to be populated with data as well, to be fostered and feed by the partners in order to behave as a working tool to communicate with the community at local and macro-regional area.

The population of the information system is so important for such Projects:

- to improve services addressed to the real needs of users.

- to support partners through analytics on deciding what kind of services should be implemented.

The important event regarding the finance boosting investments in innovation has been organized successfully from Marche Region: the first pitch-event with private investors.

The external evaluator had joined the project.

The finalization of the NEXT Suite is another priority as well, the business plan for the

future sustainability of NEXT information system as the first and hopefully most

important application of the “open data” exchange system of the Adriatic-Ionian

macro-region, the Adriatic-Ionian Cloud.

2. 6th and final NEXT Project Steering Committee meeting, Ancona, Italy on 9th of July 2015.

It was developed as per the standard Steering Committee procedures:

Preparation and sharing of the SC Meeting agenda determining participants,

objectives, topics.

Preparation and signature of the attendance participants sheet

Drafting the minutes of meeting with details of discussion of different topics of the

agenda and concluded with the conclusions.

The main conclusions of this Steering Committee:

During the last Steering Committee meeting the Lead Partner had figured out the main

new innovative lines for the future of a common system for sharing open data in the


20

matter of innovation, start-ups and European project for applied researches and

prototyping.

Partners had discussions among them about problems, solutions and opportunities

represented by NEXT-IS platform and to be defined the final status.

It was important for the partnership to understand which have been the areas and

items of improvement of the Next Project that is going to contribute in a relevant way

to the coming transnational cooperation Programme in the Adriatic-Ionian European

territorial cooperation area.

Lead Partner mentioned that the ““Research, innovation and SMEs development” is

the cross-cutting area of Strategy of Adriatic-Ionian Macro-region and of course of the

new ETC Programme “Adrion” which is the main European Programme of this area”.

The Partner Foundation for Development PfD, Tirana-Albania had presented the “NEXT

SUITE”-business plan.

3. The Lead Beneficiary and some of the project partners prepared the final version of

Biyearly Project Action Plans: July-December 2013, January-June 2014 and June-

December 2014, ongoing process for the last document January-August 2015. These

document reflected the organizational chart, calendar of deliverable and events,

allocation and budget performance.

4. Collecting the partners' proposals for the last budget reallocations, evaluations and the submissions of the budget reallocation and the project changes and finalization with the upload of these documents to the M.I.S. The changes included: Budget reallocation between budget lines, Budget reallocation between work packages and Change in the location of the project event.

5. The Lead Beneficiary (LB) had finalized the work and launched the call for tender for

promotional services by using the national web market platform for the amount of €

25.400,00 (+VAT) which was regularly assigned to the winner. The work was done for the

transnational event that took place in March 2015 in Milan. The Lead Beneficiary

prepared the communication campaign for the event. All Next Project partners invited

the most performing SMEs from their own territory and selected them to become the

part of the event catalogue that was distributed during the event GEW in Milan.


21

6. Marche Region organized a Press-Conference in January and 4 local road-shows meetings

between January and February addressed to the local CRTT and SMEs, presenting to them

the NEXT-IS platform and its functionalities to help partners and their stakeholders to get

in touch with local SMEs and CRTT belonging to the sectors of interest.

7. In relation to the WP3, the Country Outlooks for Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia-

Herzegovina, Serbia, Albania and Marche & Apulia were published at the NEXT-IS

platform. Those Country Outlooks reports should be updated periodically by the partners

themselves even after the closure of the NEXT Project. In the current versions there are

references to RTTC, addresses of institutions related to R&D and to universities, and

updated SWOT analysis and radar graphic. In the Country Outlooks there is information

for the whole country, where the aim of this work was to give the first general information

and impact that can and will be enriched with other services as well from the countries

strategies.

8. The other activities implemented through NEXT-IS platform related to: a. the “NEXT BOX basic services” as Blog and Social media:

Management of the platform and the users - fully operational Creation, acquisition and publication of contents - fully functioning Animation of the discussion community and blogs - fully functioning Verification of the completeness of data and information related to the various

centers and registered users - fully operational Online assistance for the registration data filling -fully functioning and useful

platform for the users Technical support for the acquisition of data and information from external

information sources -fully functioning and useful platform for the users b. Activities related to the NEXT BOX Advanced Services it have been continued as the: Constant updating and publication of the data of the Repository of research and

technology transfer centers (Partner’s Open Book).

Countries Outlooks available at following link: http://project-next.eu/en/documents/public-documents/

Support in matching demand and supply of services/projects/solutions during the first Adriatic Investment Forum in Milan.

http://project-next.eu/en/documents/public-documents/


22

9. Lead Beneficiary Partner supported and coordinated successfully the actions also with

NEXT Info Point operative activities: the participation of referees for the activities of

platform animation with reference to the actors of the territory and for the information

and contacts/relationships with local actors. The whole set of project activities were

implemented and realized setting up basic services: forums; library; periodical newsletter

send to the working group’s members and stakeholders.

10. The Lead Beneficiary had improved the interactive tool (NEXT Blog) with new services as:

the “Company Self-Assessment Template” published at:

http://blog.adriatic-next.eu/self-assesment/.

Marche Region has used NEXT-Marcheinnovazione.it in order to support the

publication of the “Call for Grants” addressed to innovative local SMEs - ERDF regional

funds 2015, as one of advanced NEXT BOX Services supported by NEXT Info Point.

11. Partner Foundation for Development had coordinated and carried out the study "NEXT

Suite" (WP7), with the collaboration of several partners, which provided documents,

suggestion and technical support (focal group) for the elaboration of the study, and during

the 5th Steering Committee meeting (Kragujevac), FfD developed and shared the

questionnaire with partners.

12. The Lead Partner and the project partnership were exploiting the possibility and

organized successfully the First Adriatic Investment forum of the project in the framework

of the event "Global Entrepreneurship Week" that took place in Milan congress area as

five-day event during the third week in March 2015. This event had acted as the widest

international window to promote NEXT project towards the international investor’s

community that attended the congress in preparation of “Finance Boosting Event” WP6

programmed in Ancona at the beginning of May.

The Investment booster–Finance (WP6) event has been supported by the following materials:

Research Opportunities: a repository of ideas, patents, projects, start-ups, spin-offs arising from research.

Research presentation: a collection of fiches who presented the initiatives, taken from the Repository/list, which were included in the press kit for the media;

http://blog.adriatic-next.eu/self-assesment/


23

Research Follow-up: a summary of the meetings, with interviews to participants and data from the outputs of the meetings.

13. In general terms, the expenditure outside the Programme eligible area had contributed

better to the Programme strategy on Priority 1 and it is coherent with Programme

objectives, with the public national and subnational strategies on innovation and an

added value for the cross-border cooperation area, since it brought to the attention of

international community of investors the sectors of research and innovation based in the

Adriatic-Regional area, in order to strengthen the creation of networks of investment

opportunities among the entrepreneurs/researchers/start-ups and private investors, that

is one of the NEXT projects' objectives. An international event is also the right place where

the innovation can grow and be exchanged: innovative entrepreneurial initiatives for

definition have international and global nature, and the Milan International Week of

private investors was the only occasion for NEXT project to meet all the members of this

community.

The last 4 months are part of final phase of project implementation. There is a new project

closure date postponed and had been fixed on 31st of August 2015.

Therefore, in the meantime, partners have been involved in several activities such as: 1) WP1: on 9th of July had been scheduled the final Steering Committee meeting in Ancona. The occasion had been taken for making a balance regarding results reached, outputs produced, target of expenditure performed among partners. It has been also an occasion to discuss about the future sustainability of NEXT-IS platform: who is engaged to perform the maintenance of the database (software and hosting aspects), security and custody of personal data (IDs and passwords of users), updating news and events, etc. 2) WP2: on 10th of July 2015 was scheduled and finalized its sessions the project final conference “NEXT Innovation beyond borders”, which was divided in two sections: a panel of discussion on “open innovation, technology platforms and governance models” and a round table on “smart specialization and the Adriatic-Ionian Macro-region: from strategy to action”. Partners and the audience discussed with policy makers, programming managers, authorities on innovation policies. 3) WP3: some partners were involved on preparing and publishing their own NEXT OPEN BOOK (Apulia region open book, Grad Sibenik Open Book and Trends, Istrian region Open Book, Montenegro Next Open Book, Next Open Book Bosnia and Hercegovina, Serbia Open Book). The


24

objective was to have one book for each project territory which was finalized and published from all partners having such a task.

4) WP4: the population of NEXT-IS database had been achieved and continuing. Many partners’

initiatives have been addressed bringing new users to use the platform. Marche Region planned

and made it reality to use the platform in order to increase users from Marche region interested

to participate to the call for grants – voucher for innovation and voucher for Euro-projecting. It

was a very good example also for others partners which wanted and used the platform NEXT-IS

as their working place. The future of NEXT-IS, it was interesting to evaluate to process a number

of services more and more oriented to the macro-region so as to bring the system to be the first

of APP Adriatic Ionian Cloud. The strategy for data collection "push" companies to provide much

details as possible in their profiles in order to be highlighted by the search engine automatically

and be comparable to other businesses and companies for the highest level position in the

market.

5) WP5: NEXT BOX services have been and will continue to be supplied to the innovators

community by NEXT BLOG and the news section in NEXT-IS platform. Very useful have been the

NEXT Social media, as Youtube, Facebook, Linked-in and Twitter.

6) WP6: on 11th-12th May 2015, Marche Region organized in very good partnership cooperation with REDAH and Apulia Region, the final finance boosting event, which consisted on showing cases to professional investors and business angels interested to the best entrepreneurial ideas coming from the Adriatic Region. After promoted the NEXT-IS Platform among stakeholders operating in any country participating to the project, the most interested entrepreneurs for private investors were selected and gathered to Ancona, for an intensive two days event.

the first step was a crash course on investor readiness and how to pitch, organized by META Group, a services provider of Marche Region.

the second step have been concentrated on pitching event attended by the entrepreneurs trained in front of private investors.

The pitching as a public section, was followed by a networking lunch and a private B2B meetings with potential investors. The event’s goal was to bridge the gap between investors and entrepreneurs, helping the raising of innovative ideas and the match-making process. Finally, during the final project conference, Marche Region, supported by its services providers, presented the common project output called “Success case catalogue”, which continue to be a


25

collection of best cases that have benefited of NEXT project services: NEXT-IS Box basic and advanced services, around the project territory.

7) WP7: The Albanian partner PfD was working during this time on NEXT SUITE, and finalized and

presented it on the last 6th Steering Committee while the Regional Council of Shkoder worked

through and finalized the NEXT Outlook Report for Albania and as well the External Evaluation

Report for the Next Project subcontracting the European University of Tirana, Albania.

2.1.2 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND SOLUTIONS

ADOPTED/PROPOSED

Partners have faced in the period 1st November 2014 till 30th April 2015 the stop of the

reimbursements of the IPA quotes for the validated DVEs. The Lead Beneficiary urged several

times the project officers in relation to the reimbursements then sent also on 5th May 2015 the

official document with request for the clarification in relation to the Applications for

reimbursement of the NEXT project partners.

The reimbursement’s lack led to the slow down process in the implementation of some

procedures and payments from the project partners to their providers for goods and services,

and consequently also to the difficulties to report some expenditures as not yet paid and the

commitment of other remaining expenditures was put in stand by process which resulted with

slow-down process as well in the implementation of some other activities.

Furthermore, the NEXT-IS platform was launched but before that time some improvements

needed to be done till the platform went live. The Lead Beneficiary was in constant contact with

provider of the City of Sibenik in order to overcome some technical issues and adjust properly

the platform in order to have the functionalities activated and all the sections updated with

news/events. This was the process that took a lot of coordination of the Lead Beneficiary directly

with the City of Sibenik Platform provider. The Lead Beneficiary asked the database of all


26

users/RTTC/investors registered in order to be able to put it on disposal of the IPA Programme

as project output, as the provider of NEXT-IS platform the City of Sibenik informed that the

maintenance contract between two parties expires on 20th May 2015 and the NEXT-IS is hosted

on the providers’ server and on the 6th Steering Committee meeting it was asked and suggested

from the City of Sibenik platform provider the NEXT-IS be handed over and be implemented at

the Marche Region IT environment.

For all remaining reports of PR and the related AR of the project partners, the MIS system was in

the stage of server transfer therefore the project partners had to wait for the reactivation in

order to be able to upload the expenditures. In any case the reporting process was ongoing and

all the tasks the process are ensured to be closed in timing with the project closure activities to

not create further delays at the reporting status.

Concerning NEXT-IS platform activities, the representative of the City of Sibenik during the SC in

Sibenik explained that the tender for the NEXT-IS will have delays and therefore, the Lead Partner

proposed, as a temporary solution, to develop and enlarge, the data platform

marcheinnovazione.it (owned by the Marche Region), allowing project partners to use this

platform for uploading the data and information foreseen by the project while waiting for the

conclusion of the tender procedures carried out by the City of Sibenik for the future platform of

the project NEXT IS.

The additional activity required also by project partners - and not foreseen in the phase of the

project preparation-should be supported by experts who will have to adapt the platform

marcheinnovazione.it and assist partners involved in the updating database and transfer of the

same data from the temporary platform temporary to the platform foreseen by the project NEXT

IS once it is being realized and tested.

Furthermore, during the project lifetime the great differences among the project partner in terms

of experiences, know-how and potentialities of the organization of the project working group

emerged. Since the Lead Partner is the only financially responsible partner towards the IPA

Programme MA and in order to avoid any potential problems in relation to the administrative-

financial management and further de-commitment, the Lead Partner provided the partnership

with an expert that assisted and support them locally in the activities related to the financial


27

expenditure reporting and updating action plan, such as in the fulfillment of all project

obligations.

In the premises of the Marche Region was set the NEXT INFO POINT. Following the initial

meetings to disseminate the contents of the NEXT project at the local level, the business

associations and researchers representatives involved have expressed a great interest in the

project and for the opportunities that the platform NEXT IS could provide. During the meetings

there were presented virtual services that will offer the platform NEXT IS: such as Forum, Library,

News and Blog, together with traditional services such as producing reports and catalogs based

on the needs of the enterprises for innovation and research, knowledge offer from the Research

and Technology Transfer Center (RTTC), organization of events and forums for meetings between

companies and RTTC.

The Lead Partner had collected the observations made by business associations during these

meetings and, therefore established the "NEXT INFO POINT". The helpdesk ensured a more

widespread distribution of the services offered by the platform but contributed also to the

following activities: scouting project ideas that required the involvement of a different range of

partners in the project areas; assessment of the feasibility of the ideas proposed by the

interregional partnership, matching of the project ideas proposed for finding potential partners

located in the territories of the project and detection of funding opportunities existing not only

at EU level but also at national and regional level; accompanying activities for bilateral meetings.


28

2.1.3 ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

Program Commitment

Year

IPA Contribution

(a)

National Contribution

(b)

Other

Contributions

(b)

Total Program

Contribution

= a + b

Spending

milestone

Total Budget Progress

2012 202.929 35.811 0 238.740,00 31/01/2013 238.740,00

2013 887.370,25 156.594,8 0 1.043.965,00 31/01/2014 1.282.705,00

2014 1.161.157,80 204.910,2 0 1.366.068,00 31/01/2015 2.648.773,00

2015 297.845,95 52.561,05 0 350.407,00 30/04/2015 2.999.180,00

Table 1. Annual spending forecast of the NEXT Project.

It was the suggestion and advice that the Partners must report to MA validated expenditures amounting to a total of € 1.282.705 by 31/01/2014 (in that period,

only € 146.969,43 of expenditure have been reported, of which € 48.083,55 validated)


29

Figure 1. Annual spending forecast of the NEXT Project

€202,929.00

€887,370.25

€1,161,157.80

€297,845.95

€2,549,303.00

€35.81

€156,594.80

€204,910.20

€52,561.05

€414,101.86€238,740.00

€1,043,965.00€1,366,068.00

€350,407.00

€2,999,180.00

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

Annual spending forecast of the NEXT Project

IPA Contribution National Contribution Total Program Contribution


30

Budget status

(in EUR)

Approved budget

(according to the AF)

Reported amount

(cumulative amount

of all previous

progress reports)

Eligible amount Refundable amount Remaining amount

Foreseen amount to

be spent in the next 6

months according to

the commitments

already taken

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e=a-c)

LB € 997.850,00 € 732.411,12 € 732.411,12 € 732.411,12 € 265.438,88 € 265.438,88

FB1 - Foundation Partnership for

Development € 201.945,18 € 139.962,34 € 135.131,02 € 135.131,02 € 66.814,16 € 66.814,15

FB2 - Faculty of Agriculture and Food

Technology, University of Mostar € 182.152,69 € 94.676,08 € 86.205,45 € 85.912,34 € 95.947,24 € 72.948,80

FB3 - City of Sibenik € 358.704,87 € 260.501,51 € 256.751,58 € 256.176,48 € 101.953,29 € 100.622,36

FB 4 - Regional Council of Skhodra € 196.605,69 € 65.308,70 € 60.062,37 € 58.188,82 € 136.543,32 € 115.302,33

FB 5 - University of Donja Gorica,

Faculty of Information Systems and

Technologies

€ 178.803,98 € 91.662,82 € 59.814,98 € 50.828,40 € 118.989,00 € 60.176,27

FB 6 - Association for Economic

Development REDAH € 131.092,43 € 99.997,69 € 89.188,51 € 87.556,14 € 41.903,92 € 13.787,00


31

FB 7- Montenegro Chamber of

Economy € 168.445,77 € 87.872,64 € 70.812,83 € 70.018,24 € 97.632,94 € 77.162,79

FB 8 - Istrian Developmen Agency € 207.557,66 € 112.969,40 € 105.656,98 € 105.457,88 € 101.900,68 € 101.539,73

FB 9 - Regional Economic Development

Agency for Sumadija and Pomoravlje

€ 98.983,69 € 69.993,44 € 65.757,45 € 62.738,66 € 33.226,24 € 41.209,06* (if

overbudget approved)

FB 10 - Puglia Region - Economic

Development Department - Research

and competitiveness unit

€ 124.660,81 € 62.539,77 € 23.653,11 € 23.653,11 € 101.007,70 € 59.442,85

Total eligible cost € 2.846.802,76 € 1.817.895,51 € 1.685.445,40 € 1.668.072,21 € 1.161.357,37 € 915.001,37

Table 2. Summary of the Project Financial Progress of the Implementation of the Next Project, October 2014 – April 2015.


32

Figure 2. Summary of the project financial progress of two periods of the implementation of the next project.

€0.00

€500,000.00

€1,000,000.00

€1,500,000.00

€2,000,000.00

€2,500,000.00

€3,000,000.00

Summary of the project financial progress of two periods of the implementation of the next project. November 2014-April 2015.

Approved budget (according to the AF)

Reported amount (cumulative amount of all previous progress reports)

Eligible amount

Refundable amount

Remaining amount

Foreseen amount to be spent in the next 6 months according to the commitments already taken


33

Marche Region FfD Mostar University Sibenik Shkodra UdG REDAH Montenegro Chamber IDA REDA_SP Apulia Region

Staff 5.61% 28.00% 30.08% 12.27% 22.59% 31.55% 44.36% 38.11% 25.82% 46.76% 35.92%

Overheads 0.00% 3.25% 1.39% 0.00% 0.52% 0.76% 0.04% 0.00% 1.00% 0.34% 0.00%

Travel and accommodation 0.20% 25.13% 4.41% 0.89% 1.38% 2.48% 3.55% 1.03% 2.07% 6.84% 3.08%

External expertise 63.61% 2.33% 12.78% 54.20% 2.26% 0.00% 19.53% 1.29% 17.63% 11.68% 9.16%

Meetings and events 3.67% 1.54% 3.13% 3.30% 5.39% 15.83% 7.76% 9.10% 1.57% 5.10% 0.00%

Promotion costs 0.00% 1.54% 0.19% 1.40% 0.58% 0.00% 0.00% 1.96% 5.72% 0.00% 2.01%

Equipment 0.31% 0.56% 0.00% 0.56% 0.51% 0.64% 1.04% 0.68% 0.62% 0.00% 0.00%

Investments 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Fin. charges & guar 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total 73.40% 62.35% 51.98% 72.62% 33.22% 51.26% 76.28% 52.17% 54.43% 70.71% 50.17%

Table 3. Budget distribution per partners and budget lines, October 2014-April 2015.


34

Figure 3. Budget distribution per partners and budget lines in %.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

MarcheRegion

FfD MostarUniversity

Sibenik Shkodra UdG REDAH MontenegroChamber

IDA REDA_SP Apulia Region

Reported Amount in % per Budget Line

External expertise Staff Overheads Travel and accommodation Meetings and events

Promotion costs Equipment Investments Fin. charges & guar


35

Budget status

(in EUR)

Approved budget

(according to the AF)

Reported amount

(cumulative amount

of all previous

progress reports)

Eligible amount Refundable amount Remaining amount

Foreseen amount to

be spent in the next 6

months according to

the commitments

already taken

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e=a-c)

LB € 997.850,00 € 732.411,12 € 291.521,00 € 291.521,00 € 706.329,00 € 265.438,88

FB1 - Foundation Partnership for

Development € 201.945,18 € 98.846,05 € 66.112,59 € 66.112,59 € 135.832,59 € 103.099.13

FB2 - Faculty of Agriculture and Food

Technology, University of Mostar € 182.152,69 € 94.676,08 € 46.828,28 € 46.828,28 € 135.324,41 € 84.300,00


FB 4 - Regional Council of Skhodra € 196.605,69 € 65.308,70 € 17.548,92 € 17.548,92 € 179.056,77 € 84.500,00

FB 5 - University of Donja Gorica,

Faculty of Information Systems and

Technologies

€ 178.803,98 € 63.315,64 € 39.940,22 € 39.940,22 € 138.863,76 € 106.201,00

FB 6 - Association for Economic

Development REDAH € 131.092,43 € 68.537,54 € 51.487,82 € 51.487,82 € 79.604,61 € 35.000,00


36

FB 7- Montenegro Chamber of

Economy € 168.445,77 € 65.153,38 € 48.093,62 € 48.093,62 € 120.352,15 € 67.000,00

FB 8 - Istrian Developmen Agency € 207.557,66 € 112.969,40 € 82.135,07 € 81.935,97 € 125.621,69 € 60.056,00

FB 9 - Regional Economic Development

Agency for Sumadija and Pomoravlje

€ 98.983,69 € 60.933,07 € 49.666,05 € 49.666,05 € 49.317,64 € 32.000,00

FB 10 - Puglia Region - Economic

Development Department - Research


€ 124.660,81 € 62.539,77 € 11.307,00 € 11.307,00 € 113.353,81 € 62.121,04

Total eligible cost € 2.846.802,76 € 1.593.220,64 € 871.265,23 € 870.491,03 € 1.976.311,74 € 1.055.924,74

Table 4. Summary of the project financial progress of two periods of the implementation of Next Project, November 2013-April 2014.


37

Figure 4. Summary of the project financial progress of two periods of the implementation of the Next Project.

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

4000000

4500000

LB LB FB1 FB2 FB3 FB 4 FB 5 FB 6 FB 7 FB 8 FB 9 FB 10 Totaleligible cost

Summary of the project financial progress of two periods of the implementation of the next project. November 2013-April 2014.

Approved budget (according to the AF)Reported amount (cumulative amount of all previous progress reports)Eligible amountRefundable amountRemaining amountForeseen amount to be spent in the next 6 months according to the commitments already taken


38

2.1.4 DETAILED REPORTING PER WORK PACKAGE 1-7.

The evaluation of project’s internal coherence refers also to the analysis of each Work Packages (WP). In general terms, the below

mentioned WPs seem to be well articulated and corresponding to projects aims. Anyway, the correspondence between WPs and

project output appears to be clear and well built, effectively contributing to the achievement of project’s results, as shown by the

following tables.

Table 5. ‐ Outputs and WPs’ coherence matrix

WP’s Outputs

WP 1:

Cross-border Project Management and Coordination

• Project Organizational Chart

• Kick off meeting

• The Next Action Plan (AP)

• The Quality Plan (QP)

• The Management Pack (MP)

• The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan


39

• Tenders and contracts

WP2:

Communication and Dissemination

• Communication Plan

• The project website

• Participation on local/national/international Events

• Events and press conferences

• Cross-border conferences

• Other information and promotion tools: twitter, quarterly

newsletter, elaboration of leaflets, brochures.

WP 3:

Preparatory actions for the activation of the platform

• NEXT trend

• NEXT open book

• The Requirements Specification of the NEXT IS

WP 4:

Online Platform

• Technical and functional specifications.

• NEXT IS - The online platform "NEXT IS"

• Meetings for the presentation of the online Platform, meetings

will be operational and will illustrate the features and modalities


40

of use of the online platform aiming to facilitate its use by

different targets.

WP 5:

Common services based on the online platform

• Next Box-Basic services

• Creation of links among RTTCs and the productive system of the

cooperation area (enhancement and transfer of academic

knowledge, strengthening relations which are preparatory to

technology transfer)

• Next Box-Advanced services

• Indications and suggestions for the improvement of services and

relations

WP 6:

Promotion and investment opportunities

• Business speed dating events (at least one per Country)

organized to bring together Research centers and enterprises in

order to match needs and solutions.

• Investment Booster-Finance: Events for the presentation of

innovative initiatives to financial investors (at least one per

Country).


41

• Indications and suggestions for the promotion of investment

opportunities.

WP 7:

Project capitalization: recommendations for the

sustainability of the collaboration platform and policy

indication

• Next suite – a business plan that can be presented to public

and/or private bodies to verify the interest in investing in the

future implementation and continuity of the collaborative

platform.

• Next Outlook: It is an evaluation report, which includes: - control

of the outputs and results achieved by the collaborative

platform.


42

WP 1 WP 1: Cross-border Project Management and Coordination 09/2012

04/2015 Status: Proceeding

according to work plan

WP responsible partner Marche Regional Authority – Innovation, Research and Competitiveness of productive sectors Unit

Summary of the progress in this reporting period

During this implementation period the following activities have been realized:

- Monitoring the implementing the Audit Trail System and partnership’s coordination;

- Control of the coherence of the partners' declared activities, coordination and support for the correct submission of partners' PR;

- Preparation of the LB's official accountancy documents for the correct submission of the PR within the MIS system.

- Preparation from all partners the Activity Report, tracking and recording all project incurred expenditures into the MIS;

- Submission of the Progress Report to the national FLCO and coordination of this activity for each of final beneficiaries;

- Continuous contacts and coordination of the activities with partners;

- Planning the proper time budget reallocation, gathering and evaluation of the partners' budget reallocation proposal, and its submission to the JTS and the

content related drafting in relation to the Request for project change;

- Preparation work for the 5th and 6th SC meeting in Kragujevac and Ancona: preparation of the meeting agenda, list of participants, documents to discuss

(the project action plan comprising the division of work and responsibilities among the partners).


43

- Drafting of the last PPR’s and the last Applications for Reimbursement, and related public acts needed for the IPA quote transfer to the pp;

- Preparation, analysis and finalization of the Biyearly Project Action Plan January-June 2014 and July-December 2014.

- City of Sibenik prepared the final version of the NEXT-IS platform and presented in Kragujevac SC.

- In order to respect the % activities implemented on time: 100% real costs equal to planned costs output produced equal to output planned, the LP

prepared the budget monitoring file and the REDA_SP, REDAH, City of Sibenik, University of Mostar, FfD and Regional Council of Shkodra prepared it.

- REDA SP worked on the implementation of QA activities, the aim of QA in the next period of the project is that each partner individually identify

opportunities for further improvements in the implementation of activities, using a questionnaires developed, given below:

1. Questioner on meetings effectiveness, 2. Questioner on Non-conformance Report, 3. The Internal Control Audit Trail, 4. Quality Assurance Check List for

deliverables.

During this period the setting up of the monitoring progress report has been set done, as well as the quantitative performance indicators and the self-

evaluation report have been included into Project Quality plan.

Please describe any deviations from the work plan presented in the application form, (deviations are minor changes from the work plan (can be positive or

negative) which don’t require an ‘official’ project change procedure).

No deviations from the work plan.


44

WP 2 Communication and Dissemination 09/2012 02/2015 Status: Proceeding



Summary of the progress in this period

The following activities were implemented during the implementation period:

Implementation of the Project Communication plan structured in relation to the project phases and the different targets, and updating the document with

additional documents and templates for the events organization. Those templates were presented and approved by the project partners during the Steering

Committee organized in Shkodra, Albania.

During this period Marche Region, REDAH, FfD, REDA SP, University of Donja Gorica, Regional Council of Shkodra, Chamber of Commerce of Montenegro

and IDA were engaged in organization and managing of their local workshops and conferences. All the project partners have provided the calendar of the

planned events to the LB, and some of them have delivered Internal report from the event and related materials.

The management of other Communication activities and preparation of the communication materials and the materials for the events (wp 2) with the

contribution by Marche Innovazione the LB has published a blog for the project. It is active and available on the following link: http://blog.adriatic-next.eu.

The blog is the place where partners have published initiatives, ideas, point of view related to research and innovation in project partners' territories. It

works as a playground to strengthen knowledge among all partners and to spread the awareness of Next project abroad, to enlarge the audience. For this

purpose all the project partners started with the individuating their own editorial staff that has in charge to exchange news and to animate the conversation

through the stakeholders of the project.

http://blog.adriatic-next.eu/


45

- Project website is finalized and linked with the website and the repository of project documents and outputs has been updated and all the project final

documents were uploaded as final deliverables.

- Project website contains information related only to the project partner, project description and project outputs.

- Project partners: the section contains all reference information regarding the project partners including logo and web media links (website, FB, Twitter, etc.).

- Project repository: following the experience of IPA Adriatic CBC Programme website, the repository is addressed to public audience (free access) and to

project partner (protected access).

- NEXT QUALITY & COMMUNICATION PLAN: it’s contains the Project Quality Manual-its annexes and the Communication Plan-its annexes.

- NEXT OUTLOOKS & TRENDS: here, the stakeholders can find final outputs regarding territorial macro-economic and sectorial statistical data (Country

Outlooks, NEXT Trend).

- NEXT OPEN BOOKS: it is the section where to publish catalogues of stakeholders and project fiche proposals (Next Open Book, CRTT Open Book, Start-Up

Open Book, Projects fiches Open Book).

- NEXT WORKSHOPS & CONFERENCES: it is the archive of outputs produced for or during workshops and project conferences.

- NEXT BUSINESS EVENTS: here, it is possible to find outputs regarding the business speed dating events, financial boosting events and meeting with

economic sectors (fair participations, road-shows).

- NEXT INFORMATION SYSTEM: it contains the user manual of NEXT-IS and the technical specifications to enlarge own database to NEXT-IS.


46

- NEXT SUSTAINABILITY: it regards the outputs Next Suite and Next Outlook books.

Please describe any deviations from the work plan presented in the application form.


WP 3 WP 3: Preparatory actions for the activation of the platform 02/2013 02/2015 Status: Proceed according

to the schedule



The actions developed under the WP aimed to identify smart specializations of the different areas involved, in order to identify possible synergies and

opportunities and to define priority scientific and technology areas for the co-operative platform.

The action involved the acquisition of specific knowledge useful to guide subsequent actions and outputs, in order for them to create and maximize

synergies and opportunities in the area, and at the same time, to be able to take into account the specificities of the different territories.


47

In order to achieve this and during this period the following activities have been implemented:

the analysis of the context and SWOT and cross analysis for partners' territories have been done,

the territorial meetings (at least 2 per territory) with the actors of innovation to promote both consensus on the project and to gather

requirements and expectations, according to a bottom-up logic have been done by the LB and all project partners.

One of the preparatory actions for the activation of the platform is NEXT trend a summary report, that IDA, collaboration with other partners who have

filled in the information a context analysis for each of the territories, worked on “NEXT trend study" in order to identify, for each of the territories involved,

the strategic sectors of the economy, the level of technological intensity, the results of excellence in research and innovation, investment opportunities,

supporting public policies.

Since one of the general objectives of the NEXT project aimed at cooperation among Research institutes, enterprises and researchers, the partnership

worked in order to deliver a draft version of “NEXT open book” – (Repository of RTTCs Regional Technology Transfer Centers) that consistently describes the

existing technological skills and innovation potential in the regional territory.

In relation to the WP4 the LB defined in collaboration with the City of Sibenik the document "Requirements Specification", which collects all data needed for

the configuration of the platform in order to be able to launch successfully the tender for the service provider for the platform and for respecting the

partner’s requirement and territorial specificities. According to the "Requirements Specification" (WP3), the technical and functional architecture of the

platform was defined, detailing for each item its components and its software units (application modules).




48

WP 4 WP 4. Online Platform 07/2013 04/2015 Status: Behind schedule

WP responsible partner City of Šibenik


The NEXT IS platform has been realized. Some content and technical changes were suggested for improvement of the platform and the official document

prepared by the LP and partners and shared with the City of Sibenik and the subcontracted provider.

On 27th March 2015 the LP hosted the technical coordination meeting with City of Sibenik subcontracted provider Poslovanje doo, and prepared the

meeting minutes and shared again the last version of the documents with specifications request (for all sections of the platform) that have to be improved

and adjusted.


The tender of the City of Sibenik was closed in April 2014 and the service provider selected. City of Sibenik and the marcheinnovazione representatives

organized and implemented the internal coordination meeting in relation to the platform and its contents. As temporary solution for uploading data and

information to be transferred to the NEXT IS platform. City of Sibenik prepared the beta version of the NEXT IS 1st part of the platform (the project database

section). NEXT IS second and third part of the platform have been developed in time to be published on the following months. The City of Sibenik agreed

that the changes will be applied to the first part of the NEXT IS in accordance to the suggestions provided by the LB and all project partners following the SC


49

meeting, while their provider was developing the 2nd and 3rd part. Partners agreed that excel template developed by Sibenik will be used for the initial

setting of the platform and the insertion of the initial data as this is Sibenik’s task, while Marche Region’s questionnaire shall be used for collecting

additional information that will be uploaded directly by the partners within NEXT IS. This had been added on NEXT IS as an additional service so users filled it

in.

City of Sibenik representatives, in collaboration with their service provider, prepared the document with answers to the LB suggestions, and were working

for assessing the NEXT IS platform and presentation of the final version during the SC in Kragujevac in November.

WP 5 WP 5. Common services based on the online platform 12/2013 02/2015 Status: On schedule



The activities of research and issuing of Country Outlooks have been implemented. The NEXT Info-Point has been established in the premises of the Marche

Region and was equipped for the carrying on the forecasted activities according to the AF and action plan.

All project partners were involved in the implementation of the NEXT Basic and advanced services through project blog.


50

Please describe any deviations1 from the work plan presented in the application form.

No deviation from the original work plan.

WP 6 Promotion and investment opportunities 02/2014 02/2015 Status: Proceeding




The LB set up the Project Working Groups as a working modality foreseen in article 10 of the rules of procedure of the Project Steering Committee.

Four working groups have been set up the day before the SC in Mostar to discuss four relevant aspects of project implementation phase. One of those were

related to the workshop on financial opportunities and business events for supporting research & innovation. This external expert of the Marche Region has

prepared the workshop in relation to the main financial sources for supporting the innovation and research on new technologies:


51

a. Public financial opportunities; b. Private financial actors

And in relation to the Business Data Speed Event: a. The selection of event actors; b. The organization of the event; c. The collection of information and

results

The Investment Booster Finance Event has also been presented and initiative shared with the project partners as follows

a. The selection of event actors

b. The organization of the event

c. The promotion of the event

Any SMEs and start-ups coming from the Countries participating to the project interested to this service are invited to apply on-line within 29th March 2015.


No deviation from the work plan presented in the application form.


52

WP 7 WP 7. Project capitalization: recommendations for the

sustainability of the collaboration platform and policy indication

05/2014 12/2014 Status: Started

WP responsible partner Foundation “Partnership for Development”


a) All Partners contributed on setting up the future outputs NEXT Outlook (WP7) and NEXT Suite (WP7).

b) The external evaluator selected by the Regional Council of Shkodra has launched the questionnaire for the partners evaluation;

c) Partners were invited to set up a local focal groups for the preparation of NEXT Suite by involving Foundation “PfD” and Marche Region;

d) FfD gathered data requested from the project stakeholders and partners, and elaborated the Business Plan in draft version


No deviations from the work plan took place.


53


54

3. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

The project aims to create a collaborative platform among research centers, enterprises and

researchers in six participating countries. This platform will work as an aggregation element to

stimulate and support an innovation path that will enable to increase the competitiveness of the

area.

This assignment aims to perform an evaluation of NEXT project activities with the objective to

ascertain results (output, outcome) and assess the effectiveness, and relevance of the Project

activities across 11 Partners.

Regional Council of Shkodra (Partner of NEXT Project) is the contracting authority. We

understand from the TOR that the NEXT project arises from the consideration on the role of

innovation, transnational networks and cooperation as levers of national economic development

and, more generally, of the increase in competitive capacity of enterprises through better

connection with the innovation circuits.

As per the TOR, the specific work of the external evaluating team includes:

1. Control of the outputs and results achieved by the collaborative platform.

2. Identification of models of some successful experiences from activities carried out in

support of research and innovation as well as technology transfer.

3. Proposals for improvement areas to be reported by participating Partners, taking into

account the effects that the activities will have on the Project.

4. Directions for policy development on research and innovation, at the region and national

levels, and for improving the ability to align with EU policies and targets in the field of

research and innovation, and for the development of shared policies in the Cross-border

area.

A Work Plan for the evaluation team is proposed in ANNEX 1, Table 1.


55

3.1 THE APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY OF THE EVALUATION

REPORT

The Evaluation Team conducted the evaluation process in two levels. Evaluating the project

activities of the 11 partners of the six countries of the NEXT Project. At the project level, the team

evaluated the achievement of the overall objectives of the project. The evaluation team

conducted process evaluation for the ongoing activities and outcome evaluation for the

completed activities. Both process and outcome are part of the evaluation exercise. What we

achieved and how we achieved it are both very important. The team will look at outputs and

results type of indicators at activity and project level.

The results approach would require greater collaboration and coordination among the evaluation

team and within the partners at the country level. All partners have a common task to working

toward meeting their project objectives, ensuring that inputs are provided and outputs delivered

to achieve the desired outcome. The focus on the results of project activities is linked with what

information is collected, how it is collected, and how it is used.

While both monitoring and evaluation will be connected to achieving objectives and expected

outcomes, evaluation would be needed to analyze why certain outcomes were achieved or not

achieved.

The evaluation method shall be evidence based. The evaluation team will cooperate with all 11

partners to receive the needed information data (progressive reports and self-evaluation reports

and different documents published on the platform already) on their completed and/or ongoing

activities. Additionally, surveys needed to be carried out with stakeholders to assess the effects

of the activities from their perspectives.


56

It is a multi-method evaluation approach that can involve (a) key informant interviews; (b) focus group interviews, (c) community interviews; (e) surveys. The evaluation will take on the learning aspect: 1) how the knowledge have been shared among partners on research, innovation and technology transfer activities, 2) how has this contributed towards a greater cooperation between them, and creation of a collaborative platform.

Apart from the external evaluation, self-evaluation reporting of activities will be requested from

11 partners. This involves all participating partners to assess activities from the perspectives of

outputs, effectiveness, results and sustainability how it is doing, as a way of learning and

improving practice. It takes a very self-reflective and honest organization to do this effectively,

but it can be an important learning experience.

The focus of evaluation will be the:

Analysis of partners’ activities and their relations.

Identification of strengths and weaknesses of the cooperation and collaboration between actors, and processes undertaken.

Analysis of the effectiveness of public policies to support innovation in the targeted areas.

Identification of best practices as reported by partners.

Identification of possible benefits related to policies that support creation of collaboration platform in the project area.

We have gathered data and reviewed mostly the completed activities on the platform, all the

information was uploaded properly on the web site.

During this period the UET project Team organized meetings with key government officials, tour

possible project areas in various countries not realized except Serbia and Italy, interviewed

relevant organizations which were involved in the research and innovation activities, and

discussed his initial and final conclusions with the Shkodra Regional Government.


57

The evaluation questions that was prepared and delivered to all partners and their stakeholders

reflects the evaluation criteria such as: effectiveness, results, relevance, and sustainability, and

where relevant the contribution to broader strategic objectives. Additional evaluation issues may

also have to be analyze during the course of the evaluation work.

Evaluation results of the Team will be communicated effectively to all relevant decision-makers

and other interested stakeholders/parties through this document.

The development and policy context of evaluation

The evaluation report provides a description of the policy context relevant to the development

intervention of the Project’s activities in the participating countries and partners’ policy

documents, objectives and strategies. The development context refers to regional and national

economy and levels of development. The policy context refers to research and innovation and

technology transfer strategy and policies that the six countries have adopted respectively.


58

3.2 STRATEGY-OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION ACTIVITIES

In the Table below is a synthesis of the different evaluation activities and their focus.

Furthermore, data were collected are explained in more detail in the table below.

Stage Evaluation Activities Instruments

Methodological note -exploratory interviews with partners

- analysis of project’s database for

sample determination

- editing methodological note

- discussion methodological note

with partners

- interviews

- document study

Documentary phase -short literature study of concepts of project

and partnerships

- actualization and consultation on relevant

partners

- data collection on policy and approach in

terms of partnerships

- data analysis of the policy and the approach of

partners with regard to partnerships

- collection and analysis of documents with

regard to the partnerships in the project

- study of documents

- interviews (individual and

group) supplemented with a

focus group discussion

on the concepts of

partnership for

each partner

- web survey: one web

survey on the policy


59

making of the partners and one

web survey to get info on the

selected

partnerships

Writing and delivery of

the final evaluation

report

-Control of the outputs and results achieved by

the collaborative platform;

-Identification and creation of models of some

successful experiences carried out in support of

innovation;

-Proposals for improvement areas to be

reported to the Programme Authority, taking

into account the effects and impacts that the

project will have on the Programme and vice

versa;

-Directions for policy development on

innovation, research and higher education both

within the national Operational Programs

financed by the Structural Funds, and for

improving the ability to align with EU policies

and targets in the field of research and

innovation, and for the development of shared

policies in the Cross-border area.

-Final results of the Evaluation Report shall be

presented in a workshop in the Shkoder Region.

-data collection via most

significant change, focus

groups and/or web survey

- interviews (individual and

group) with beneficiaries and

stakeholders

- document study

Table 6. Overview of evaluation activities


60

3.2.1 METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES

The methodology used in the different phases is described in the methodological report and the

documentary phase report.

The methodological note describes several methodological challenges. It also indicates to what extent these restrictions had a real effect during the evaluation:

Presence of key figures in the partners the evaluators assume will not prove easy to find the right respondents.

In practice however, this will not create any major problems.

The evaluators will be able to get the fullest possible picture of the partner organization. As far

as the methods for data collection are concerned. The evaluators will manage to work out the

historical perspective of the partners.

In connection with these key principles, the assessment should consider the design of the project,

including project justification and logical link between levels of objectives. The assessment should

analyze what did the project or program, and what are the effects of the project, as measured by

results, Impact and Impact Initial Term. The evaluation should critically analyze the extent to

which external factors affecting domestic achievement of objectives are taken into account,

respectively.

The assessment does not seek to analyze the work done by project manager. Assessment

technique examines a project in the context of policies and strategies, in order to draw lessons

for future steps, and provides information to decision makers.

A project should always be evaluated by the project manager and the team.


61

3.2.2 LOG FRAME

The evaluation was founded on seven evaluation questions, divided into four clusters with a

distinction made between (1) policy making, (2) approach and management, (3) effectiveness

and (4) adaptively. Each evaluation question provides information for the evaluation of one or

more OECD/DAC criteria (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact).

On the table below, seven evaluation questions divided into four clusters with corresponding

judgments criteria.

Cluster 1: policy making and strategic choices

Evaluation question 1 – What policy was/is developed

by all the partners in this cross-border project?

Judgment criteria:

− policy documents comprise a vision of partnerships

− objectives regarding partnerships are relevant

in the light of the general objectives of relevant

partners in the region

− policy regarding partnerships is result-oriented

Evaluation question 2 – Which strategic choices did the

partners make regarding the approach and methods in

the field of innovation and competitiveness of

European Regions?

Judgment criteria:

− the intervention strategies regarding innovation and

competitiveness are founded on clear methodological

choices


62

− the intervention strategies have evolved together

with changing ideas regarding support to partners’

relationships

Cluster 2: approach and management

Evaluation question 3 – To what extent are policy

principles and strategic choices regarding partnerships

translated into interventions and cooperation with

partners?

Judgment criteria:

− The partner policy of this project is based on a

professional identification and selection process of

partners

− the project contributes to processes with the

partners in a relevant way

− The partnership has the necessary resources and

capacity to support the main policy orientation in the

field of innovation and research for the beneficiary

countries.

Evaluation question 4 – How is the management of the

partner relation developed and how are the processes

of the partnership followed up?

Judgment criteria:

− sound management of the partnership relation

− sound management of support the project as part of

the partnership relation

Cluster 3: effectiveness of support to project in partnerships


63

Evaluation question 5 – What changes can be

determined regarding the capacity of the partner

organizations?

Judgment criteria:

− there are indications for the development of the

partners’ capacities

− The results of the partner’s project in the partner are

long-lasting

Evaluation question 6 – To what extent is the partner

organization better able to realize its development

objectives (output and outcome level)?

Judgment criteria:

− Changes regarding the partner’s outputs as a result of

processes of project

− The support to processes of project has influenced

the outcome of the partner organization – changes on

the level of the final beneficiaries

Cluster 4: adaptive capacity

Evaluation question 7 – To what extent are the relevant

actors (all partners of the project NEXT) able to adapt

their policy and approach regarding project support to

the challenges that arise, taking into Account a

changing context the region?

Judgment criteria:

− NEXT partner’s capacity to adapt

Table 7. Seven evaluation questions divided into four clusters with corresponding judgments

criteria


64

3.3 MEASURING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PROJECT

Criteria to be used for evaluation of the activities

The evaluation report applies the European Commission criteria for evaluating external

assistance such as relevance, effectiveness, impact-results, and sustainability 4 . The criteria

applied for this evaluation exercise are defined in ANNEX 2, MATRIX 1.

The overall effectiveness of the Project’ activities will depend on the extent to which these

activities work together toward meeting a common objective of the project. That is, the vertical

links between the activities become operationally critical for the region and country as a whole

and would be the focus of monitoring at the country level.

Developing indicators

The team have realized a great look at outputs and results type of indicators at activity and

project level. MATRIX 2, ANNEX 3 describes the indicators to be used in this evaluation exercise.

4 Directorate General External Relations, Directorate General Development, EuropeAid Co-operation Office, Joint Evaluation Unit.

Evaluation Methods For The European Union’s External Assistance Methodological Bases For Evaluation, Chapter 6/6.4, VOLUME

1, 2006.

“The questions are classified in different families that correspond to different "viewpoints" on what is being evaluated. Seven of

these viewpoints, also called evaluation criteria, are to be considered: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, impact,

coherence/complementarity, and Community value added. The first five correspond to the traditional practice of evaluation of

development aid. They have been formalised by the OECD (DAC). The following two apply to all EC policies.”pg.49.


65

The Team shall define indicators in order to measure activities, outputs, and outcomes. Output

indicators measure the quantity of activities (i.e., number of activities, people participated, etc.).

These indicators shall be uniform across activities for all 11 Partners.

Outcome indicators measure the broader results achieved as a result of the provision of activities.

These indicators can exist at various levels. Partners’ level indicators measure results for which

partners are responsible, while project-level indicators measure the results for which a project is

responsible.

How will we get information?

The main official sources of information will be the NEXT and BLOG web sites, where all project

activities, and reports will be deposited in these sites. Progress reports and self-evaluation

reports are other important sources for the evaluation (see ANNEX 4). A guideline for preparing

a self-evaluation by 11 Partners is given in ANNEX 5. Trips to participating countries normally

strengthening the quality and credibility of information being collected, but here the team didn’t

succeed(for major issues mostly healthy ones) to participate on those trips and this is a week

point of the evaluation report and process. The evaluation team conducted online surveys and

other data collection efforts to produce a uniform set of performance information that could be

used across all activities and 11 partners under their control. A draft questionnaire has been

prepared for the survey (see ANNEX 5) and sent already to the partner and received back

information even with a gread delay the answering back. This normally reduces the burden of

data collection and provide uniformity and transparency to project implementation.

Who Should Be Involved?

Eleven Partners of six countries and relevant stakeholders have been involved in the evaluation

process to identify issues and provide input for the evaluation. The evaluation report indicated

the stakeholders consulted the criteria for their selection and describes stakeholders’

participation.


66

3.4 TIME TABLE WORKS

As per the Terms of Reference, the 8 months contract started date 14 October 2014 and the

period of implementation of the contract ended August 2015, the Evaluation team has carried

out a number of activities during the evaluation period October 2014-August 2015.

First period, Methodological note: October 30 – December 15, 2014

The experts of the UET project team traveled to Shkodra and organized meeting with other NEXT

Partner in Tirana since first days of October, and during the whole 1st Evaluation Monitoring

Phase. In Shkodra and Tirana the team followed the following agenda:

Meetings to be followed:

1. Discussion with officials in the Shkodra Region and Municipality.

The aim of the meeting was understanding the role of the relevant organizations in innovation,

transnational networks and cooperation as levers of national economic development and, more

generally, of the increase in competitive capacity of enterprises through better connection with

the innovation circuits.

2. Meeting and discussions with local private and public organizations.

Also on the first visit the team talked to some firms and entrepreneurs who were interested in

their involvement in the innovation collaboration network.

3. Presentation of initial and go-on findings.

After the visit, the Team decided to meet again with local government counterparts and other

relevant organizations to present their initial views, and this process happened time to time till

the end of the project.


67

4. Different Meetings with Fondacioni “Partneritet për Zhvillim” (PFD) partner in Tirana.

The aim of the meeting was understanding the role of the relevant organizations in innovation,

transnational networks and cooperation as levers of national economic development and, more

generally, of the increase in competitive capacity of enterprises through better connection with

the innovation circuits.

Traveling Process for Evaluation Process.

Three members of team have organized some travelling from the Travelling agenda to be fulfilled:

1. First travel was at the 5th Steering Committee meeting arrangement, Kragujevac, Serbia

on 20th – 21st November 2014.

2. Traveling to Shkodra and Tirana regularly being in touch with what activities they planned

to do and helping somehow to go further in more innovative ideas.

3. The next travelling was to Italy, in the framework of the Global Entrepreneurship Congress

2015 held in Milan, from March 16th-19th, 2015. NEXT project partners decided to

organize the first Adriatic Investor Forum an international event focused on assessing and

evaluating the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the Adriatic region.

4. The final one visit was at the 6th Steering Committee (SC) Project meeting in Ancona, Italy,

9-10 June 2015.

In those meeting the evaluation team analyzed the project database for the sample

determination and discussed the methodological note for evaluation of data analysis of the policy

and the approach of partners with regard to partnerships.

The following travels planned to be for evaluation of data analysis of the policy and the approach

of partners with regard to partnerships, it was not possible to be done and the team analyzed

the whole process through getting the Progress Reports from the Partners:

1. Visit to Montenegro–Bosnia Herzegovina and Croatia – Not realized, creating at the beginning

of writing the evaluation report a week point for the better discussion during the monitoring and


68

evaluation process of the partner’s work, but substituted this gap analyzing all documents

published at the official web site of the Next Project.

The Evaluation team followed with the following activities during the 1st period of evaluation:

Distributed the self-evaluation form to all partners with guidance on how to fill it.

Distributed a questionnaire to all partners to be filled by key actors of the participating

partners.

Collected progress reports from partners (downloaded from Next IS Platform) that show

activities carried out and their outputs and results achieved and lessons learned.

Second period, Documentary phase: April 1 – July 31, 2015

Writing and delivery of the first draft Evaluation Report.

After writing the first draft, the Team Leader submitted the document to the Shkodra Region

authorities for their feedback, comments and suggestions.

The Team leader with all experts traveled to Shkodra and discussed the first draft with Shkodra

Region authorities, receive their suggestions and reflected on the needed improvements on the

final one evaluation report.

Third period: writing and delivery of the final evaluation report: October 2014– August, 2015.

Writing and delivery of the final evaluation report, which shall include:

Control of the outputs and results achieved by the collaborative platform;

Identification and creation of models of some successful experiences carried out in support

of innovation;

Proposals for improvement areas to be reported to the Programme Authority, taking into

account the effects and impacts that the project will have on the Programme and vice versa;

Directions for policy development on innovation, research and higher education both within

the national Operational Programs financed by the Structural Funds, and for improving the


69

ability to align with EU policies and targets in the field of research and innovation, and for

the development of shared policies in the Cross-border area.

Final results of the Final Evaluation Report have been delivered to Shkodra Region for their

feedback, comments and suggestions.

Regarding the index of consulted documents, the team members used: (i) the progress reports of the participating partners; (ii) activities reported separately as they have taken place; (iii) the feedback on the evaluation reports model distributed to all partners.


70

3.5 MONITORING AND SELF-EVALUATION REPORT

Tailor-made procedures and tools will be defined to monitor and evaluate the activities of the project, in relation to:

monitoring progress reporting; analytic development of the project with respect to the schedule and the quantitative performance indicators, considering both the activities and the financial aspects;

self-evaluation reporting; quantitative and qualitative analysis of the performance in terms of

efficiency, efficacy, impact, sustainability (“active” buy-out tools – questionnaires, interview

grid – and “passive” information – elaboration of a series of reference indicators, etc.);

Evaluation activity; project relevance, performance, efficiency and outcomes in relation to stated

objectives.

The monitoring and self - evaluation activities: what is expected?

Outputs expected: The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will provide operational indications regarding:

- the scope of monitoring and evaluation (specifying project objectives and developing a conceptual framework that integrates the inputs, activities, outputs, results and impact and establishes realistic expectations of the result of monitoring and evaluation)

- the methodological approach (determining monitoring and evaluation methods, including identification of output and result indicators, data source, and plans for data analysis)

- the implementation plan of monitoring and evaluation (defining activities, roles, responsibilities and a timetable with realistic expectations of when data will be analyzed and results will be available. A plan for disseminating and using the evaluation results: determining who will translate the results into terms useful for program designers, managers, and decision-makers; how findings will be shared and used; and the implications for future monitoring and evaluation)


71

- quantitative indicators: 1. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan; 2. Interim Evaluation Report; 3. Final Evaluation Report.

Results expected

DESCRIPTION TARGET VALUE DATE OF DELIVERING Strengthening project management

capacity of partners through the use of

instruments and procedures which can be

used also in other contexts

% activities implemented on time: 100% real costs

equal to planned costs output produced equal to

output planned

01/04/2015

Spread of the acquis communautaire among

Countries in the Adriatic area Re-use of instruments and procedures within the

internal organizational processes of partners

(internal reviews)

01/04/2015


72

4. ANALYSIS OF GOVERNANCE AND PROCEDURES

4.1 THE PARTNERSHIP COMPOSITION.

Following the success and the experience coming from the two current macro-regional strategies

(EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, EU Strategy for the Danube Region), the EU Commission

is now drawing up an EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian region of the Adriatic and Ionian

Macro region. This is a functional area, composed of national, regional, and local bodies coming

together to tackle a number of shares issues and it involves territories of EU member states: Italy

and Croatia (from July 2013) and also potential candidate countries as Albania, Bosnia-

Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Serbia as well. The general objective of the new Strategy is to

promote economic and social prosperity and growth in the region by improving its attractiveness,

competitiveness and connectivity. The Strategy should also play an important role in promoting

the EU integration of Western Balkans. In this sense the project NEXT have been play an

important role as it have been pave the way for a fruitful collaborations and for starting together

to achieving common objectives.

The project has been promoted by 11 partners coming from 6 different countries:

Italy (Marche Regional Authority, Puglia Region/Economic Development

Department/Research and Competitiveness Unit),

Albania (Regional Council of Shkodra, Foundation "Partnership for Development" PfD),

Bosnia‐Herzegovina (University of Mostar/Faculty of Agriculture and Food Technology,

Association for Economic Development REDAH),

Croatia (Grad Šibenik, Istrian Development Agency),

http://www.project-next.eu/en/about/participants/#puglia-region-economic-development-department

http://www.project-next.eu/en/about/participants/#puglia-region-economic-development-department

http://www.project-next.eu/en/about/participants/#agronomski-i-prehrambeno-tehnoloski-fakultet-sveucilista-u-mostaru


73

Montenegro (Chamber of Economy of Montenegro, University Donja Gorica/UDG Faculty

for Information System and Technology),

Serbia (Regional Economic Development Agency for Sumadija and Pomoravlje (REDASP)).

ID Partner Partner Name Role within the Project Legal Status Country

LP Marche Region WP 0 (0.1, 0.2, 0.3)-

(R, C, R)

WP1 (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5,

1.6)-

(R,R,C,R,R,R)

WP2 (2.1, 2.2)- (C,R)

WP3 (3.1, 3.2, 3.3)- (C,C,C)

WP4 (4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4)-

(C,C,C,C)

WP5 (5.1, 5.2, 5.3) – (R,R,R)

WP6 (R, C,C)

WP7 (7.1, 7.2)- (S, S)

Public body Italy

PP1 Apulia Region WP 0 (0.1, 0.2, 0.3)-

(-, S, S)

WP1 (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5,

1.6)-

Public body Italy

http://www.project-next.eu/en/about/participants/#university-donja-gorica

http://www.project-next.eu/en/about/participants/#university-donja-gorica


74

(S,S,S,S,S,R)

WP2 (2.1, 2.2)- (S,R)

WP3 (3.1, 3.2, 3.3)- (S,S,S)

WP4 (4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4)-

(S,S,S,S)

WP5 (5.1, 5.2, 5.3) – (S,S,S)

WP6 (C, S,S)

WP7 (7.1, 7.2)- (S, S)

PP2 City of Šibenik WP 0 (0.1, 0.2, 0.3)-

(-, S, S)

WP1 (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5,

1.6)-

(S,S,S,S,S,R)

WP2 (2.1, 2.2)- (S,R)

WP3 (3.1, 3.2, 3.3)- (S,R,R)

WP4 (4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4)-

(R,R,R,R)

WP5 (5.1, 5.2, 5.3) – (S,S,S)

WP6 (C, S,S)

WP7 (7.1, 7.2)- (S, S)

Public Body

Croatia


75

PP3

IDA

(Istrian Development Agency)

WP 0 (0.1, 0.2, 0.3)-

(R, S, S)

WP1 (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5,

1.6)-

(S,S,R,S,S,R)

WP2 (2.1, 2.2)- (R,R)

WP3 (3.1, 3.2, 3.3)- (R,S,R)

WP4 (4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4)-

(S,S,S,S)

WP5 (5.1, 5.2, 5.3) – (S,S,S)

WP6 (C, S,S)

WP7 (7.1, 7.2)- (S, S)

Body governed

by public law

Croatia

PP4 Chamber of Economy of

Montenegro

WP 0 (0.1, 0.2, 0.3)-

(-, S, S)

WP1 (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5,

1.6)-

(S,S,S,S,S,R)

WP2 (2.1, 2.2)- (S,R)

WP3 (3.1, 3.2, 3.3)- (S,S,S)

WP4 (4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4)-

Body governed

by public law

Montenegro


76

(S,S,S,S)

WP5 (5.1, 5.2, 5.3) – (S,S,S)

WP6 (C, S,S)

WP7 (7.1, 7.2)- (S, S)

PP5 University of Donja Gorica

WP 0 (0.1, 0.2, 0.3)-

(-, S, S)

WP1 (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5,

1.6)-

(S,S,S,S,S,R)

WP2 (2.1, 2.2)- (R,R)

WP3 (3.1, 3.2, 3.3)- (S,S,S)

WP4 (4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4)-

(S,S,S,S)

WP5 (5.1, 5.2, 5.3) – (S,S,S)

WP6 (C, S,S)

WP7 (7.1, 7.2)- (S, S)

Non-profit

private

organization.

Montenegro

PP6 Regional Council of Shkoder

WP 0 (0.1, 0.2, 0.3)-

(-, S, S)

WP1 (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5,

1.6)-

Public body Albania


77

(S,S,S,S,S,R)

WP2 (2.1, 2.2)- (S,R)

WP3 (3.1, 3.2, 3.3)- (S,S,S)

WP4 (4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4)-

(S,S,S,S)

WP5 (5.1, 5.2, 5.3) – (S,S,S)

WP6 (C, S,S)

WP7 (7.1, 7.2)- (S, R)

PP7 University of Mostar

WP 0 (0.1, 0.2, 0.3)-

(-, S, S)

WP1 (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5,

1.6)-

(S,S,S,S,S,R)

WP2 (2.1, 2.2)- (S,R)

WP3 (3.1, 3.2, 3.3)- (S,S,S)

WP4 (4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4)-

(S,S,S,S)

WP5 (5.1, 5.2, 5.3) – (S,S,S)

WP6 (C, S,S)

WP7 (7.1, 7.2)- (S, S)

Public Body Bosnia‐

Herzegovina


78

PP8

Association for Economic

Development of Herzegovina

- REDAH

WP 0 (0.1, 0.2, 0.3)-

(-, S, S)

WP1 (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5,

1.6)-

(S,S,S,S,S,R)

WP2 (2.1, 2.2)- (S,R)

WP3 (3.1, 3.2, 3.3)- (S,S,S)

WP4 (4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4)-

(S,S,S,S)

WP5 (5.1, 5.2, 5.3) – (S,S,S)

WP6 (C, S,S)

WP7 (7.1, 7.2)- (S, S)

Body governed

by public law

Bosnia‐

Herzegovina

PP9

Regional Economic

Development Agency for

Sumadija and Pomoravlje

WP 0 (0.1, 0.2, 0.3)-

(-, S, S)

WP1 (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5,

1.6)-

(S,S,R,S,S,R)

WP2 (2.1, 2.2)- (S,R)

WP3 (3.1, 3.2, 3.3)- (S,S,S)

WP4 (4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4)-

Body governed

by public law

Serbia


79

(S,S,S,S)

WP5 (5.1, 5.2, 5.3) – (S,S,S)

WP6 (C, S,S)

WP7 (7.1, 7.2)- (S, S)

PP10 Foundation “Partnership for

Development”

WP 0 (0.1, 0.2, 0.3)-

(-, S, S)

WP1 (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5,

1.6)-

(S,S,R,S,S,R)

WP2 (2.1, 2.2)- (S,R)

WP3 (3.1, 3.2, 3.3)- (S,S,S)

WP4 (4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4)-

(S,S,S,S)

WP5 (5.1, 5.2, 5.3) – (S,C,S)

WP6 (C, R,S)

WP7 (7.1, 7.2)- (R, S)

Non-profit,

private

organization

Albania

R Responsible partner

C Coordinating partner

S Supporting partner

Table 8. Project’s Partners.


80

As far as the capacity to build a strong cross‐border partnerships is concerned, the project shows

great balances through the project partners, considering the presence of at least 2 partners per

country except Serbia one partner.

The analysis of the typology of partners involved, shows the presence of many different kind of

partners, with not a predominance of public subjects we have a diversification of public bodies

(35%), private universities (30%), and non-profit private organization (35%) which is roughly the

same percentage of the partners of the NEXT Project. From the evaluator point of view seems

not so difficult to establish solid institutional cross‐border partnerships among these public

bodies, private universities and private bodies with the great help of Lead Partner building a solid

institutional partnership.

The partnership model experienced has lend to territorialize project’s relationships, the project

contributed to strengthen the cross border relations both among the project partner and among

the different and several cross – border regional and local stakeholders, institutions and

businesses. The project has helped to create cross‐border relationships and collaborations,

identifying common aspects of the two shores of the Adriatic Sea, to be supported and developed

in future”.


81

4.2 THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND THE DISTRIBUTION

OF RESPONSIBILITIES.

As stated in the main Project document, NEXT intends to create a collaborative platform to

support innovation and technology transfer in the countries of the Adriatic area. Project involves

11 partners and associates, and multiple target groups and stakeholders, from 6 different

countries, including: Italy, Albania, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro.

The project management structure was planned during the preparation of the project proposal

and was adopted at the kick-off meeting.

The structure was composed in such a manner to ensure efficient and quality project realization.

NEXT management was structured at three levels:

Steering Committee (SC) responsible for the achievement of the project objectives,

Program Manager Office (PMO) responsible for the activity plan management and project daily operations,

Partner Operations Teams (POT) responsible for the proper implementation of project

activities at local level.

The NEXT project management structure was well-organized, professionally coordinated and

fully committed to the efficient realization of assigned activities, financial management and

reporting.

The NEXT project management methodology was a systematic project management approach,

based on observing the project as a system of interconnected elements. In this context, it has

been essential for the management to put in place the structures, policies, goals and relationships

that the project needed in order the results to be at the end and during the whole Next Project


82

lifecycle the most successful ones. Thus, the entire system’s elements needed to be aligned with

the goals and the purposes of the project and they have been.

Taking into consideration the project’s international character, the project management process

have been carried out by three organizational structures:

Steering Committee (SC), composed of two representatives designed for each project partner and responsible for:

approval of acts and key project documents, such as the Action Plan, Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, Communication and Dissemination Plan;

contribution to ensure motivation and team spirit in the project;

observance of formal procedures;

ensuring efficiency in relation to the internal communication and decision-making

process;

ensuring uniformity of external messages and communication;

ensuring efficacy of the dissemination and mainstreaming actions;

ensuring coherence of the planned actions in the Project Activity Plan.

Project Manager (PM) and the Program Manager Office (PMO), represented by the team of professional staff set in by each Project Partner, and responsible for:

activity plan management and project daily operations;

carrying out all required tasks

resolving occurred issues or problems

setting out the team operating rules and procedures

performing monitoring and evaluation procedures.

Partner Operation Teams (POT), composed by professional staff provided by each partner organization, responsible for:

proper implementation of project activities in the national context, in accordance with the Biyearly Action Plan authorized by the Steering Committee and to the Operative Procedures established by the Partner Project Manager.


83

Through the Steering Committee, partners have been enabled to jointly develop the project,

making decisions and addressing activities to be done in a common way. The Steering

Committees have been met 6 times during the whole lifecycle of the NEXT Project:

Details of the overall discussions, conclusions and decision during the Steering Committee

meetings you will find below.

1st Steering Committee:

Overall conclusions and decisions made during the first Steering Committee meeting:

Project activities must be accelerated;

Communication plan should be revised to include one more social networks platforms

(LinkedIn) and chapter dedicated to language towards different stakeholders and target

groups;

Draft version of the project logo should be created by the middle of July;

Final version of the project logo should be created by the end of July;

Profiles on social networks and newsletters should be created by the end of July;

The deadline for the feedback from all partners is middle of July;

The deadline for finalizing the document is within the next two or three months;

The final web site is expected to be done by middle of July. Wiki Project private session

might be included;

Before publishing, the web site should go through the approval process;

The main web site page will be in English language, and the platforms will be on the native

languages of the partners involved in the project;

The deadline for the template to be sent to each partner is 20 days;

The deadline for partners to send it back is end of August;

By the first week of October the report of the activities done so far should be sent;

Within the October and January the partners have to attend one or two Steering

committee meetings and lots of local events;

The deadline - 5th July: project progress report;


84

The deadline – 25th October: it is a milestone for the progress expenditure reporting time

plan.

For September: Partners’ procurement plan;

The first project change is supposed to be within the January – by that time to collect the

partners` suggestions;

The first Conference will be held in the first week of October and will be organized by

partner Regional Council of Shkodra in Shkodra, Albania;

The next Steering Committee meeting will be held in Mostar before the end of the

October and will be organized by the partner REDAH.

2nd Steering Committee


The Steering Committee members have approved the document - Rules of the Steering

Committee. The document will be an annex to the Project Quality Plan.

The SC members have approved the biyearly Action Plan July-December 2013.

Within the deadline - 31st October 2013 – the LP will submit to the Programme’s MA the

2nd project progress report. All the project partners was decided at this SC will close into

the M.I.S. at least one PR by the end of October 2013 in order to respect the amount

foreseen in the Biyearly Action Plan. A detailed time-plan activities for next three months

will be prepared and send as soon as possible by the LP.

Partners have appreciated the content of the Project Quality Plan and have decided to

approve it. Even the annexes have been approved as its integral part. The project partners

agree to commit themselves to sending the Quarterly Activity Reporting Form duly filled

in with the deadlines proposed. It is decided that the partners in charge to draft the PQP

will identify the Project Quality Manager and inform all partners by email.

Under the condition that a small adjustments need to be applied to the website, it can be

considered as approved by SC members.


85

The first version of NEXT Trend is waiting within December 2013. A list of local events with

stakeholder is need as soon as possible. This list should be updated every month where it

is relevant.

The platform should be designed by reflecting the needs of partners and territorial data

and the overall objective to be maintained and used after the end of the project by

activating less financial resource possible.

SC members approve the template 2-8-9, stakeholder list, Internal reporting for events,

Project’s events planning. SC members agree to approve the Visual Identity Guideline and

the communication tool-kit. A Facebook profile of NEXT Project will be created by the LP’s

service provider.

It is not a problem if an over budget happens, the problem eventually is the

underreporting. Therefore, all partners are invited to report as much as they can even if

on some budget lines are in over budget or they have not foreseen such budget line in

the interested WP. The first project change will be submitted within the middle of

December 2013. All partners are invited to send to the LP within the end of November

their well-motivated request by using the project change request form. The expenditure

reporting should be closed in the M.I.S. within the 30/10/2013. This means that all

partners are invited to send by email the Activity Report to the LP in duly time in order to

collect the requested signature on this document.

The next Steering Committee meeting will be held in Mostar at the end of January 2014.

It will be organized by REDAH with the support of LP’ experts. The secretary of the SC will

be ensured by REDAH.

3rd Steering Committee


The SC members have agreed and approved the agenda for the 3rd SC meeting. The

minutes of the 2nd SC meeting have been approved.

The SC members have approved the presentation of SMART INNOVATION PEOPLE

Communication campaign and its templates.


86

Proposal of Marche Region on financial cutting and budget reallocation among partners

was approved with unanimity of votes. Therefore the final total budget amounts are those

in the green column as “Partner budget - NEW REALLOCATION”

The scheme of Biyearly Action Plan Jan-Jun 2014 was approved. All PP should send their

Action Plan for period Jan-Jun 2014 by 7th February 2014 in order to make the Budget

Performance Plan, the Calendar of the output deliverable and the Calendar of events.

Budget reallocation proposal should be sent by each PP by 7th February 2014. Self-

monitoring and evaluation activities will start in six months upon the receipt of guidelines

and template from Marche Region.

The NEXT Trend and the NEXT Outlook templates were approved by SC members.

The “Technical and functional specifications” output was approved, but partners can send

their suggestion by 5th February 2014 (if any). Marche Region proposal regarding the user

model was approved by SC members.

All Partners will contribute on setting up the future outputs NEXT Outlook (WP7) and

NEXT Suite (WP7). The external evaluator will be contracted within June 2014. Partners

are invited to setting up a local focal groups for the preparation of NEXT Suite by involving

Foundation “PfD” and Marche Region.

REDASP will send official communication for nomination of Ms. Marijana Božić as Project

Quality Manager. The 4th SC meeting will be held in Šibenik in period 14-18 July 2014, but

the date might be subject of possible change. Draft minutes of the 3rd SC meeting were

approved by the participants.

4rth Steering Committee


The SC members have agreed and approved the agenda for the 4th SC meeting. The

minutes of the 3rd SC meeting have been approved.

The SC members have approved the beta version of the NEXT IS 1st part of the platform

(the project database section). NEXT IS 2nd and 3rd part of the platform will be developed

as soon as possible and in timing to be published at the end of October 2014. The City of


87

Sibenik agreed that the changes will be applied to the first part of the NEXT IS while their

provider is developing the 2nd and 3rd part. Visibility of some sections of the NEXT IS

platform will be improved. City of Sibenik will apply changes and testing will be completed

as soon as possible. Initial database will be ready next week (and marcheinnovazione.it

and simple excel will be uploaded immediately). Transfer data from marcheinnovazione.it

and others owner database from partners to NEXT IS will be agreed with provider of City

of Sibenik.

All the project partners must sent to LP till 1st October 2014 the following templates filled

in:

Project Outputs_20 07 2014;

Project Results_20 07 2014;

Partners have to prepare the zip file that will include the folders per each wp1; wp2;

till wp7 and will include all the materials (draft or final outputs) that were produced by

the project partner.

For all the events/focus group/workshop/seminar that were organized by the project

partner or the events/focus group/workshop/seminar that the project partners'

representatives took part to the following material should be sent to the LP: agenda,

attendance sheet, photos, minutes (if available).

The second project change will be launched in late September 2014. The scheme of

Biyearly Action Plan July-December 2014 was approved. All PP should send their Action

Plan for period July-December 2014 by 8th September 2014 in order to make the Budget

Performance Plan, the Calendar of the output deliverable and the Calendar of events.

REDA SP will perform control of the quality: will be the partner responsible to ensure that

all outputs present the same characteristics in conformity with the Quality manual

approved by the SC. The questionnaire for the self-evaluation will be provided by the LP.

The proposal for eventual postponing the project ending date and extension of the

project duration: will be discussed in the next SC meeting.

Small adjustments will be done by the end of July 2014 on the website while end of August

for the repository.

Partners agreed that excel template developed by Sibenik will be used for the initial

setting of the platform and the insertion of the initial data as this is Sibenik’s task, while


88

Marche Region’s questionnaire shall be used for collecting additional information that will

be uploaded directly by the partners within NEXT IS. This will be added on NEXT IS as an

additional service so users can fill it in.

All project partners have to develop services (basic services by feeding the project blog

with relevant info and data; and advanced services by carrying out some professional

activity) which have a direct impact on WP5 expected results. If these services will have

an undertaking character that they must be developed in compliance with Programme

rules on State Aid and revenues.

All partners have to organize at least one international business matching event. LP

prepared the toolkit which partners should follow in order to organize successful

international business matchmaking event and measure the impact. The LP will organize

the financial investment boosting event together with the final project cross-border

conference in Ancona. Guidelines will be prepared in timing.

All Partners will contribute on setting up the future outputs NEXT Outlook (WP7) and

NEXT Suite (WP7). The external evaluator tender has to be re-launched by the Regional

Council of Shkodra. Partners are invited to setting up a local focal groups for the

preparation of NEXT Suite by involving Foundation “PfD” and Marche Region. FfD will

provide the Check-list by the end of August to the project partners. The deadline is set to

30th September 2014 for sending to the FfD the data that will be requested to the project

stakeholders and partners.

The 5th SC meeting will be held in Kragujevac in period 13-14 November 2014, but the

date might be subject of possible change. Draft minutes of the 4th SC meeting were

approved by the participants.

5th Steering Committee

The project is coming into the final phase of its implementation. The information system – NEXT IS – had been completed in its final version, ready to be populated by local stakeholders (start-ups, RTCCs, “innovators”), uploaded with information (big data) regarding projects and market opportunities, inter-connected with other database by sharing “open data” regarding the innovation sectors and fields.


89

NEXT Blog needs to be fostered and feed by the partner in order to come a working tool to communicate with the community at local and macro-regional area.

The population of the information system is symptomatic and propaedeutic to improve services addressed to the real needs of users. Data analytics will support partners in order to decide what kind of service should be implemented.

Moreover, the final session bring within the project the important events regarding the finance boosting investments in innovation. Marche Region will organise the first pitch-event with private investors.

Finally, the external evaluator had joined the project and with its support partners can improve

the project actions and results. Relevant will be also the contribution of the evaluator to the

finalization of NEXT Suite, the business plan for the future sustainability of NEXT information

system as the first and hopefully most important application of the “open data” exchange system

of the Adriatic-Ionian macro-region, the Adriatic-Ionian Cloud.


Expected results: Approval of the Meeting Agenda and of the Minutes of the previous SC

meeting: 5th SC meeting (WP1), Consolidate Minutes – Šibenik, 25 July 2014 (WP1)

Approval: Project financial and implementation monitoring report – WP1.4. Project final bi-yearly Plan 2015 - updated – WP1.2. Project Monitoring and Self-Evaluation Interim Report – WP1.5.

Expected results: Since NEXT IS is on-line, the promotional and dissemination events are the most powerful tools to improve the project impact and results among the stakeholders. Thus, it is important to have a plan with the aim to collect data from such events related to the results milestones estimated in the project AF. Output: Project Final Events Plan (WP2.2)

Expected result: NEXT Open Book is one of the most relevant output of the project and of NEXT IS. Thus, it is expected from the whole partnership a relevant contribution in order to publish relevant data regarding RTCCs located in their territory. Output: RTTCs Open Book (updated version) (WP3.2).

Expected results: the discussion will allow to skill partners on usage of NEXT IS and of its Data Analytics. Output: Analytics Report Form (WP4.4).


90

Expected results: collecting indications and suggestions for the improvement of services and relations. Output: Indications and suggestions for the improvement of services and relations on WP5 (WP5.3).

Expected results: to share and transfer the best methodology, indications and suggestions for improving the partner’s activities towards stakeholders involved by the project. Output: Indications and suggestions for the improvement of WP activities: guidelines and methodology for a pitch-event (WP6.3).

Expected results: sharing of the evaluation plan and of the first suggestion coming from the NEXT business plan. Output: Evaluation Plan NEXT Suite – draft version 1.0.

6th Steering Committee


The 6th SC meeting as first topic of the SC the partners agree to approve the SC minutes of the 5th SC held in Kragujevac.

The LP representatives introduced the administrative issues related to the partners' reimbursements and explained that in order to avoid any delay due to the reimbursements from the IPA Programme Payment Authority, it would be wise if all the project partners close 2 PR in MIS and not just one. They advised that the last PR is left and includes only the staff cost expenditures at most. Therefore for the last AfR that the LP will validate, the DVEs having just staff cost will be included.

The LP explained to the partnership that soon the Final Project Progress report will be drafted and for the successful submission to the IPA Programme, the LP will ask the contribution to all the project partners.

Project partners can report more budget then it is on disposal by the overall budget and the staff cost.

In relation to the savings and over-budget: The LP explains that it is not possible to transfer money from one partner to another at this stage and from one partner country to another, since this would represent the substantial project change and need the approval of the JMC and involves the co-financing quote appointed to each Programme participating country.


91

Therefore the normal project change between project lines of each partner will be consolidated with the submission of the last PR in MIS.

The LP takes this opportunity to refer to the partnership that the last reallocation of the

budget has not yet been uploaded in MIS by the IPA Programme staff due to the server hosting

changes related to MIS, but the official approved budget is the one submitted by the LP in

February 2015.

LP explains to the partners that the last expenditures should be invoiced at 31st August 2015

and paid at latest on 30th September 2015 in order to be reported as NEXT project costs

The LP agree to close in MIS at least 2 more PR and with last report the remaining staff cost.

The LP will send the proposal for the last PPR to partners so they can estimate the cost for

eventual expertise if they need it for the successful closure of the project. September is fine

for all pp for sending the reporting and forecast of expenditures.

The website was important for the community involved in the project and project activities.

IDA explains that will maintain the website for next 3 years. This will be possible to continue

to publish the documents on the public -private repository. Blog can also be used and give

evidence on news. The proposal of IDA to maintain the website for next 3 years is accepted by

all the partnership

Open innovation is the new issue and the platform NEXT IS is all about this. Each of the project

partners will publish its Open Book.

FfD presented the final version of the wp7 output - NEXT SUITE. FfD and City of Sibenik

representatives introduce the issue related to the sustainability of the platform NEXT IS. The

discussion opens with the issue related to the services that can be here provided.

City of Sibenik presents the current situation in relation to the NEXT IS platform and explains

that the municipality is quite small and it is not the core activity. Therefore agrees that the

platform from the technical point of view can be taken over by Marche Region. Sibenik

representatives say that another topic related to the ownership should be discussed. City of

Sibenik representatives have to have an official handover in order to secure control in future.

LP explains that the Marche Region can host the platform without any additional costs for the

partners. Moreover, explains that NEXT IS blog and other two instruments can be hosted by

the LP with strong focus on quality as the HORIZON 2020 is asking.


92

LP says that the platform NEXT IS is already secured by the Partnership Agreement within the

partners of the project. Product NEXT IS is being developed by the City of Sibenik and contains

all the data from all the partners. Marche Region already used the NEXT IS for publishing the

local call for proposals on own POR. LP proposes the possibility to have joint contract where

the LP will have task of transferring the infrastructure. Then the mayor of Sibenik will have to

agree about this.

Shkodra representatives explain that their structure is very interested in the platform after

the project is closed as Shkodra needs innovation and has a big interest about this platform.

They have built a NEXT agency with representancy of the stakeholders and will search

financing from the donations and other projects. When stakholders know that exist the

possibility of meeting and exchange with other stakeholders from the Balkans they are

extremely interested.

LP says that will take care of the security fo the databases, and says that during the final event

there will be the discussion on how to use the platform at country level, othervise the platform

will remain the prototype. The second phase could be the local development plan and then

not to put the amount on the table. So it is good that every pp sends us the development plan

that can be useful for its country and therefore it is not mandatory but important for the sense

of community.

LP used the tool and dedicated it to the enterprises applying on calls of ERDF funds for the

new programming period.

The NEXT SUITE final version of the document is approved by the partnership. The City of

Sibenik representatives proposed that the software infrastructure is transferred to the LP's

cloud with databases. Draft agreement will be developed for this issue.

LP representative presents the Final event content. The Framework of opportunities of RIS3

will be described. The LP's representative makes a short summary of all the topics and items

treated during the SC meeting and Steering Committee members agree to approve the draft

of the minutes that will be written and shared by the LP after the SC meeting in Ancona to be

considered the project official document and output.


93

As per 6th Steering Committee meetings organized, to this respect, as stemming from field

analysis, meetings are considered by the 100% of partners the main tool implemented for ensure

partnership involvement. This instrument has been considered “very important for good and

efficient cooperation of project partners” but at the same it has been “fully successful because

always through meetings, seminars and SC partners arrived to clear conclusion and precise

operative indications. Moreover, there was no‐attendance of some partners during the meetings

and this has been another point of advantage for the entire Next Project”.

In order to assure quality systematic project management performance, the following set of rules

have been followed during the whole Next Project lifecycle:

1. Implementation of Regulating Feedback Loops

Regular implementation of feedback loops allowed the system to adjust itself and resulted

in a desired value. Namely, Feedback Loops compared and measured the difference between

a certain process variable and a desired value. The output of the loop will then been used to

take the appropriate and effective corrective measures.

2. Setting out and following the rules of project implementation. Project rules have been clearly and carefully defined in order to allow achievement of the project objectives. The project management have make rules simple to understand and follow. This has been particularly important considering the number of partners (and their different backgrounds) and international character of the project. Rules have taken the form of incentives, penalties, constraints and procedures. Rules have been planned with the greater good of the project in subject. Project stakeholders’ self-interests have foreseen, hence, the project management strived to see the bigger picture as well as what is good for the whole.

3. Capturing not only what is measurable, but also what is important Project management have tend to capture those variables that are easier to measure, such as productivity, task duration, cost, number of defects, inventory levels, etc. However, there have been others, more subjective variables that have been equally important to capture and evaluate, such as team morale, motivation, stakeholder satisfaction and stress levels. These elements have played an active role in the Project, therefore, perceiving both


94

objective and subjective variables allowed better understanding of the situation and higher management quality.

4. Allowing self-organization Self-organizing structures are better than static ones. Self-organization can lead to innovative ideas and ways of thinking. In a project management context, self-organization can lead to new and more efficient ways of performing tasks or solving problems. This measure have been practiced towards Partner Operations Teams.

5. Allowing and assuring direct feedback to the decision-makers Management responsible for decision making have been assure effective channels for receiving direct and honest feedback from all project stakeholders about the results of the managing decisions. The line of feedback provision have stretched from PM and PMO to POT and final beneficiaries, organizations thus research centers, SMEs, etc.

6. Satisfying the “Orientors Star” Project management have been taken into consideration six “Orientors”: adaptability, security, existence, effectiveness, freedom and regard. Namely, management have been able to adjust and protect itself and the project activities from challenges posed by the environment.

7. Knowing key performance indicators

Quality management have been capture what is changing in the system and how fast. Project managers have been responsible for carefully choosing a set of key performance indicators tightly related to the project objectives. Having in mind the complexity of the organizational structure, and the necessity to keep communication between partners efficient and productive, which in turn will contribute to the quality of the deliverables, managing partners have worked out a periodic internal meeting and reporting procedure. Also, internal communication was organized in a way to optimize information flow between project partners. That process ensured that all project activities are handled in an efficient and time-effective manner. An e-mailing list for internal communication has been established for communication purposes during the project implementation. Hence, as highlighted in the Project’s Communication plan, the following


95

communication methods and instruments have been used in order to ensure information flow and in accordance adequate and efficient decision making:

Communications and information flow have been exercised through regular management meetings, mailing lists and internet working groups.

Every 6 months, Project Progress Reports have been elaborated so the entire

management could have an insight into the process of project implementation.

Audit Trail System have been implemented in order to keep track of and control the

declared expenditures and relevant related documents.

Partners have been provided reports to the head project manager at regular intervals (every

three months). Interim Project reports have been prepared by the Lead Partner every 6 months,

and have been discussed at the management meetings. To the other side, reports have been

submitted and discussed via mailing lists by writing procedure.

The Partner Project Reports have been based on internal report by using the Quartely Activity Reporting Form. Each Project Partner included to it:

a copy of any promotional material produced in the quarterly period;

a copy of project outputs or contributions to project outputs produced in the quarterly

period.

Project completion will be summed up by the final project report, which will serve as the official

document against which project results will be assessed in comparison to the project objectives

and expected deliverables.


96

No.

WP

WP Title Partner Responsible Degree of coherence between the

administrative competences

comparing with WP objectives.

(Opinion of the Evaluator

High/Medium/Low – H/M/L)

1 Cross-border Project Management

and Coordination

Marche Regional Authority –

Innovation, Research and

Competitiveness of productive

sectors Unit

H

2 Communication and Dissemination Marche Regional Authority –



sectors Unit

H

3 Preparatory actions for the

activation of the platform




sectors Unit

M

4 Online Platform City of Šibenik H

5 Common services based on the

online platform




sectors Unit

M

6 Promotion and investment

opportunities




sectors Unit

M


97

7 Project capitalization:

recommendations for the

sustainability of the collaboration

platform and policy indication

Foundation “Partnership for

Development”(Tirana, Albania)

M

Table 9. Degree of coherences between the administrative competences comparing with WP

objectives


98

4.3 THE IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS AND PROCEDURES.

The evaluation of the implementing mechanisms and procedures is aimed at processing in

systemic way the available information and issues, qualifying recommendations on quality and

efficaciousness of organizational, procedural and implementing assets, in order to verify the

impact of all these factors on the project’s capacity to fulfil identified objectives. As for

implementing mechanisms and procedures at a project level, it is worth notice that the

“Programme Management and Control Manual” (PMCM) drawn up in the framework of IPA

Adriatic CBC Programme is an essential guide for supporting and accompanying activities, from

both a methodological and operational perspective.

Moreover, management coordination up to Lead Partner also through the identification of

operative functions of the Project Manager strengthens the positive elements referring to a

managerial approach as for projects’ implementation. The systemic vision of Lead Partner as

regarding the projects’ implementation is also a valuable platform of knowledge and can allow

to the identification of tools favoring the sustainability of partnership established during the

implementation of project.

Duties and responsibilities of the Lead Beneficiary are clearly stated in the IPA Subsidy Contract

signed with the Managing Authority and within the Annex I, regarding the General Conditions of

the Subsidy Contracts. These documents clearly define activities, co‐financing terms and

obligations related to reporting activities and financial advancements. The Partnership

Agreement clearly states, as well, responsibilities up to partners and each useful element

deputed to assure a sound financial management of the project.

To this end, the signing of the Partnership Agreement between the Lead Beneficiary and partners,

which is a pre‐requisite for signing the IPA Subsidy Contract, while not threatening the principle

of the Lead


99

Beneficiary, allows for applying to partners as well rules and responsibilities defined in the IPA

Subsidy Contract. Such documents assure a common knowledge platform and a shared approach

as regarding duties surfacing from the common implementation of project’s activities and a

common management, also of financial issues related to intervention. Positive elements of

project’s legal framework are underlined in the table below.

Legal Framework Positive Elements

Subsidy Contract and related Annexes:

Annex 1: General Conditions of the IPS Subsidy

Contract

Annex 2: Copy of the Project Application Form

Annex 3: Original copy of the Project’s Partnership

Agreement

Annex 4: The funding allocation letter(FAL)

Annex 5: The Update of Project’s time plan and the

budget revision where required(section 4, 5 and 6 of

the Project Application Form);

Annex 6: Project Lead Beneficiary bank’s account

identification notice;

Annex 7: Project’s Lead Beneficiary legal status notice

In compliance with the financing decision of the JMC,

the MA awards the Community contribution to the

Lead Beneficiary for the implementation of the Project.

The documents clearly apply to the Lead beneficiary

principle, responsible for the financial management

and the implementation of the project on a whole;

moreover, they defines activities, terms of co‐financing

and duties related to activities reports, rules apply as

well to partners.

Partnership Agreement The Partnership Agreement contains a clear definition

of responsibilities among partners and provisions for

guaranteeing the sound financial management of the

funds allocated to the project, including the

arrangements for recovering unduly paid amounts and

the transferring of the Community contribution from

the Lead Beneficiary to the other partners.

The Lead Beneficiary is the sole responsible for the

whole project towards the Managing Authority,

therefore the Partnership Agreement signed with all


100

other Beneficiaries allows the Lead Beneficiary to

extend the rules and responsibilities set out in the IPA

Subsidy Contract to the level of each partner and

mainly to share common understanding of the

implications of participating in the project both in terms

of activities and financing.

Responsibilities of project’ partnership Project Partners’ responsibilities are defined in the

framework of efficient decision‐making structure,

which orients in efficacious and efficient way

cooperation processes related to the implementation

of

Interventions.

Table 10. Positive elements with reference to legal framework

Reporting Activities and consequential financial ones are defined at two levels: - at the project level within the Project Progress Report (PPR); - at Partner level, within the Progress Report(PR).

Progress Reports are compiled by the project’s partners and by the Lead Beneficiary and are

composed of an Activity Report, whose information have to be reported in an Activity Report

Template, produced in the framework of the Programme. They contain, in addition a Financial

Report, which reports detailed information on the incurred expenditures broken down per each

budget line and per Work Package.

Expenditures are inserted in the Programme Management Information System (M.I.S.) conceived

as a on‐line multi‐users platform. Each Progress Report has to contain supporting documents for

each incurred expenditure and an exhaustive list is provided in the PMCM. Progress Report

(Activity Report signed by the Lead Beneficiary and Financial Report) has also to be reported in

the platform and then sent to First Level Control Office (FLCO).

The Project Progress Report has to be drawn up on six‐monthly basis and contains detailed

information on activities, outputs, results achieved within the reference period, together with a


101

financial reporting on the validated expenditures in the framework of the implementation of the

project and the application for reimbursement submitted. The Managing Authority of the

Programme made many changes in the model of the Project Progress Report so as information

embodied within the 6th PPR’s are organized in a different way from other project’s PPR.

As for the verification and validation of expenditures, project’s partners have to perform an

administrative and financial self‐evaluation of supporting documents, by using a check‐list

provided by the Joint Technical Secretariat and must submit the Progress Report, specifically the

Activity Report, to the Lead Beneficiary before submitting it to the FLCO. The Lead Beneficiary

has to sign the Activity Report and assure that expenditures concurred to the real

implementation of the project are in line with the activities agreed upon by all beneficiaries. The

process of validation of expenditure up to the Lead Beneficiary could bring about a time

extension for the whole procedure; in that sense, it would be advisable to identify common

procedures between partners and Lead Beneficiaries oriented to time‐saving. The table below

shows positive elements related to reporting activities implemented by the project.

Reporting Activities Positive Elements

Progress Report and Project Progress Report The documents allows final beneficiaries to provide

detailed information on activities of the reference

period (and eventual deviations from the time‐plan),

related outputs and expected/matched results. As

actually structured, Reports are useful tools which

enable the Programme’s Management Structures to

perform a quantitative qualitative monitoring of the

projects’ implementation, through an in-depth analysis

of the success factors, lessons learned and criticisms

surfaced, with the aim to spread project’s results on a

broader level and suggest, in the case,

measures/actions to improve the performance level of

intervention


102

Declaration of expenditures by the final beneficiaries The possibility up to final beneficiaries to declare

expenditure in each implementing phase of the project

by inserting data on the MIS Platform puts in place, on

the basis of lessons learned, efficacious mechanisms to

spread up the partners’ expenditure capacity and

assure the full commitment of the co‐financing quota

Table 11. Positive elements with reference to reporting activities.

Reporting Activities Positive Elements

Role of Final Beneficiary Final Beneficiary assumes several responsibilities:

collaborate with the Lead Beneficiary and all other

Final Beneficiaries to guarantee the correct

implementation and the success of the project; the

FB should nominate a contact person for

communicating with the other partners and with

project manager/LB;

carries out its own part of the work as defined in the

project Application Form, to monitor the progress of

the part of the project which it is directly responsible

for and to make sure that the project implementation

under its responsibility is carried out in accordance

with the programme documents and the pertinent

EU regulations;

agrees on to apply the requirements and obligations

as defined in the Partnership Agreement;

maintains either a separate accounting system or an

adequate accounting code for all transactions

relating to the project;

produces regular Progress Reports on its

implemented activities and expenditure;


103

keeps available all its documents related to the

project for at least a period of 3 years following the

closure of the IPA Adriatic CBC Programme.

Role of Lead Beneficiary Lead Beneficiary assume the following responsibilities:

lay down the arrangements for its relations with the

Final Beneficiaries participating in the project

(through Partnership Agreement) comprising, inter

alia, provisions guaranteeing the sound financial

management of the funds allocated to the project,

including the arrangements for recovering amounts

unduly paid;

is responsible for ensuring the implementation of the

entire project and support the Final Beneficiaries in

carrying out the overall project implementation in

accordance with the programme documents and the

pertinent EU regulations;

is responsible for transferring the Community

contribution to the final Beneficiaries participating in

the project;

it ensures that the expenditure presented by the final

Beneficiaries participating in the project has been

paid for the purpose of implementing the project and

corresponds to the activities agreed between the

final Beneficiaries participating in the project;

it verify that the expenditure presented by the final

Beneficiaries participating in the project has been

validated by the controllers (FLCO).

Role of the First Level Control Office (FLCO) FLCO carries out on Progress Report proper checks of

administrative documents covering 100% of the

reported expenditures of lead/final beneficiaries and

on‐the spot checks to a sample of Progress Reports of

national beneficiaries


104

National FLCO will check all the Final Beneficiaries

contract awards also paying attention on spotting the

potential cases of illegal splitting of the object of a

tender. It also serves as a basis to start investigating if

there is sufficient reasoning for splitting of the object of

the contract. The Managing Authority may also carry

out this check.

The process of Validation of Expenditures Procedures related to Validation of Expenditures

reflect the put in place of a system of clear allocation of

responsibilities among the many actors involved; each

of them, according to its roles and functions, has

specific duties as regarding the different aspects

related to controls

Each Country designated the controller/s responsible

for verifying the legality and regularity of the

expenditure declared by the Final Beneficiaries

established in its territory. Consequently each Progress

Report submitted by every Final Beneficiary

participating in a project has to be verified and

confirmed by the First Level Control Office established

in the related Country.

The main aim of the control systems is to provide a

guarantee for the Managing Authority, the Certifying

Authority and to the project itself that costs are

reported and claimed in accordance with the legal and

financial provisions of the Programme rules, as well as

the Community regulations and national rules.


105

However, within the Programme, additionally to the

first level controls, expenditure incurred and paid out

by each Final Beneficiary may undergo a number of

verifications by different actors.

All these actors have the possibility to see the Progress

Report through the Management and Information

System of the Programme that envisages accesses with

specific profiles according to the role played by each of

them within the Programme.

The Declaration on Validation of Expenditures (DVE) Once issued the DVE, the Lead Beneficiary, according to

the efficiency principle, can start in each moment the

procedure for drawing up an Application for

Reimbursement to the Managing Authority

Role of the Managing Authority The Managing Authority has the overall responsibility

for verifying the regularity of expenditure.

Retains the overall responsibility in terms of verification

of regularity of expenditures can perform ongoing

controls on the implementation of the project’s

activities as reported in the work plan of the

Application Form, as well as on the compliance of

interventions with procurement rules, publicity and

information measures

Table 12. Positive elements with reference to first level control of expenditures


106

4.4 PROJECT INFORMATION FLOWS AND COMMUNICATION

TOOLS

Information flow between the partners:

It is important to envisage a good communication flow among partners agreeing on means,

modality and timeframe for the internal communication since the beginning.

The main subjects of the internal communication within the project have been:

sharing information needed for the partners in order to work together,

informing constantly about project progress,

identifying problems and overcome them if necessary,

taking decisions on project changes (if needed).

When teams are working together over long distances between different Countries, good

internal communication flows are important and this has been evident during the whole Next

Project. Good in this context means that information needed for working together has to be

shared among all partners as in the reality happened and to be concrete, clear and timely during

the whole Next project lifetime. Insufficient communication can easily lead to conflicts and

problems; too much information or irrelevant information can, on the other hand, make

confusion, this has been taken into consideration from Lead Partner since the beginning and

taking care during the whole project.

Therefore to ensure a good communication flow in a complex, multinational and long-distance environment as in the cross-border cooperation projects, the following aspects have been kept in mind from partners:

a clear language, that is also easy to understand for non-native speakers, should be used (being the language of the Programme, English is suggested and used);

vague messages have been avoided and it was used being as concrete as possible;


107

in case of using technological means, all partners got the technical access/capacity and

the skills using these tools where was needed without creating extra work for others.

The project meetings remain the basic pillar to guarantee an effective communication within the

project as moments to afford vis a vis the management and coordination tasks and to build up a

certain level of confidence and trust.

There are different views on what the “ideal” frequency of project meetings is. Surely only one

meeting per year would not be enough; some projects find appropriate to meet every three

months, others every six months.

This choice depends on the size of the project in terms both of funding and of number of partners.

It should be taken into account, however, that although large partnerships can benefit from more

frequent meetings to communicate on a “face to face” basis, at the same time, it is difficult to

arrange meetings for a large number of people to be available on a certain date. The number and

frequency of the project’s meetings should be decided early on, also in order to plan correctly

the needed resources.

The basic meetings to be arranged are the kick-off meeting, interim meetings (to discuss

progress, reporting) and the final meeting (to evaluate outputs and initiate project closure). The

results of meetings are to be documented and communicated to all partners as minutes and

specific decisions taken to address issues/problems.

A way to reduce the need for physical meetings, which can be more timely and costly, is to use

videoconferences. It is however stressed that while they are extremely useful, they cannot

replace the basic need for face-to-face meetings for some key occasions (for example, the kick-

off meeting).

As mentioned above, projects can envisage the use of technological means to facilitate the

communication activities among partners, mainly the day-to-day work. In this respect, while

phone, fax and e-mail are the most commonly used tools, such cross-border cooperation projects

often may have a need for additional, more sophisticated technologies that can support

collaboration. The implementation and use of such systems should be planned well (including


108

financial resources and time for their set-up) in order to ensure benefit for the project and not

creating extra work for partners’ organizations. The use of technological tools and devices can

improve the working efficiency of the team. For instance it could be useful to envisage an online

storage of documents, which is a good way to ensure that all partners have easy access to the

latest

Information flows within the project has been implemented at different levels, as also confirmed by fieldworks:

- 1st level: that are communication between Lead Partner and Managing Authority through email, fax, MIS and technical seminars;

- 2nd level: concerning the communication between Lead Partner and partners through

email, telephone, fax, Skype and meetings (Steering Committee and structured seminars);

- 3rd level: related to communication between beneficiaries and Programme’s structures

(for instance, controllers) through post, official mail and MIS.

At project level, the most important information flow has been activated within the framework

of the Steering Committee, defining both the project implementation plan and the project

changes’ requests and approving main output. The Lead Partner has monitored and addressed

the Steering Committee’s activities, as well as the whole project, periodically informing the

managing Authority as well (through the drafting of 6 Project Progress Reports). At the same time

the Lead Partner has controlled project’s activities and approved the forecasted and fully

finalized the Activity Reports and Progress Reports, and submitted all forecasted and finalized

Applications for Reimbursement to the Managing Authority.

As far as communication activities are concerned, partners have used as internal and external

communication instrument the project website (http://www.project-next.eu/en/), which have

been visited by 2218 of people per month (average data), developed in English language (it can

be good advice that in the future to be developed from main partners as well Italian page, Bosnia-

Hercegovina page, Montenegro page, Croatian page, Serbian page and Albanian page in the

native languages).


109

Moreover, the project has been promoted within the main social networks, like:

- Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/NEXTAdriatic);

- Twitter (https://twitter.com/next_adriatic);

- LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/grp/home?gid=5110560 )

- YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/user/nextadriatic ).

On the other hand, traditional ways of communication (press and events) have demonstrate a

sufficient success of public through promotional video, brochures delivered, 5 newsletter

created, press articles and advertisements on TV and radio produced, conferences press held,

dissemination meetings, international participation events and more participants to project

events).

During this period of project implementation a large network of potential suppliers or

contributors of innovation and technology data and information have been identified. More than

800 actors (grouped in about 68 categories) have already been entered into the beta version of

the platform.

In addition, a large number of researchers and institutions are expected to contribute also as part

of their promotion and visibility improvement strategies.

However, as mentioned before, we will focus on quality and creation of value for the contributing

partners. NEXT-IS platform can only be as a good as the data it receives and to receive good

quality data there must be strong motivation for the contributing partners to do the work and

will therefore work at making these benefits more visible to the partners and increase the

interest various actors to become active contributors.

In general terms and apart from data related to single partner’s dissemination activities, the

analysis highlights a recovery results of communication activities compared with the former

evaluation activities.

https://twitter.com/next_adriatic

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/home?gid=5110560

https://www.youtube.com/user/nextadriatic


110

Nevertheless, in order to consolidate these results, it was the best solution the appointment of

the Communication Manager at project level with direct responsibility on the implementation of

a communication campaign having the objective to involve a larger number of stakeholders. The

website had been improved and now it is quite updated from all partners.

The above mentioned elements stems also as small criticalities from field analysis, as well as

elements attaining to procedures: the 90% of partners answering to the questionnaire drafted

by the evaluator, have stated that Next organization, procedures and implementing rules have

shown an increase from medium to high level of effectiveness.

The main difficulties encountered within procedures are detected in:

Difficulty of data insertion in the MIS platform;

Difficulties of interpretation for the classification of the staff in the budget line and WPs;

lack of a referent always active and clear;

Communication not always clear.

The project partnership encountered some difficulties within the procedure rules due to

the fact that of course the origin and the nature of all the partners are very different.

Moreover, as far as the procedure rules, the main difficulties have regarded the not always easy

coordination among a large number of different partners. Additionally, sometimes the

compliance among internal procedures and the project rules required a further effort which most

of the time was done from the Lead Partner to support and help any partner having difficulties

on the compliance with the internal procedures.

According to the evaluator, as far as the delays in funds transferring towards the partners are

concerned, the involvement of the Region office in charge of financial monitoring and the

assignment of certain duties upon the related internal staff could enable the overcoming of such

criticality.

Finally, a synthetic analysis of data and information gathered by the evaluator and based on some

key indicators (adequacy of personnel, clarity in responsibilities shares, level of IT

communication) is drafted in order to assess the degree of coherence of strategies adopted in


111

relation to what has been planned in the Application Form, the efficacy of procedures defined in

relation to those implemented and the efficiency of actions carried in relations to results

expected. Such a confrontation takes in to account also the interaction modalities between

Programme’s Management structures.

Key Indicator Pertinence of the Strategy Efficacy of the procedure Efficacy of the action

Adequacy of personnel Coherent with methodological

model as in AF

Project Team set up achieved Staff involved has been tried to

be able to carry on the duties

assigned keeping in

consideration of time to time

the problematic of financial

management capacity

registered in such

management.

Clarity in responsibilities

shares Agreement upon objectives

among partners partially

achieved

Setting up of the Steering

Group and working group

within some WPs was

successfully achieved.

The very well process of

distribution of duties in the WPs

has always led to the

involvement of dedicated

partners in the implementation

of activities. This has produced

in all cases, no any negative

effects and results.

Level of IT communication Coherent with methodological

model as in AF

The Next Platform for the

partners was successfully

realized and used from all of

them and stakeholders as well.

No inefficiencies can be

registered. Interaction

modalities with CBC IPA

Adriatic Programme

management structures were

continuous and effective.

Table 13. Qualitative assessment of procedures


112

5. ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

5.1 PROJECT FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK

The evaluation on financial data has been conducted through the verification process of Lead

Partner, who has given financial monitoring information of outmost importance, considering the

Lead Partner role within project and Programme rules. The Lead Partner is in fact responsible, on

the one hand, for the validation of the Activity Reports presented by the partners and, on the

other, for the collection from the Monitoring System of partners’ Declaration on Validation of

Expenditure (DVE) and submit them to the Managing Authority for supporting the request of

reimbursement (AfR). An order of payment (OP) will be forwarded to the relevant Accounting

Office by the Managing Authority in order to make the payments on the bank account of the Lead

Partner.

The Lead Partner has also been responsible for the pre‐payment request to Managing Authority

that has to be considered an element of greater importance to get started on project’s activities

and to activate payments to suppliers and tenders’ winners.

The payment procedure for pre‐financing had represented one of the most relevant financial

criticalities of NEXT Project, because of the large delay of its allocation to project partners. The

project has in fact been approved by the Joint Monitoring Committee with a financial allocation

of 2.900.180, 00 Euros of which 2.549.303, 00 Euros were from IPA fund and 449.877, 05 Euros

from national contribution.

After the subscription of Subsidy Contract, the first pre‐payment amount had to be delivered to

the Lead Partner, but this sum has been received not on time and liquidated to all partners had

been done with a delay to what was foreseen to be.


113

As a consequence, partners have started the project’s cash‐flow management only after one year

from the subscription of the Subsidy Contract. The delays on the liquidation to be distributed to

all partners happened on the next two years project implementation time 2014 and 2015 as well

creating difficulties on managing the cash-flow process and achieving targets as per partners or

WP’s.

Program

ommitment

IPA

Contribution

National

Contribution

Other

Contributions

Total Program

Contribution Spending

Total Budget

Progress

Year (a) (b) (b) (= a+b) milestone

2012 €202,929.00 €35,811.00 €0.00 €238,740.00 31/01/2013 €238,740.00

2013 €887,370.25 €156,594.80 €0.00 €1,043,965.00 31/01/2014 €1,282,705.00

2014 €1,161,157.80 €204,910.20 €0.00 €1,366,068.00 31/01/2015 €2,648,773.00

2015 €297,845.95 €52,561.05 €0.00 €350,407.00 30/04/2015 €2,999,180.00

Total

€2,549,303.00

€449,877.05 €0.00 €2,999,180.00

Table 14. Next Project Budget distributed per IPA, National/others Contributions 2012-2015.


114

No. Partner's name Country ID Amount %

1

Marche Regional Authority – Innovation,

Research and Competitivness of productive

sectors Unit Marche Region LP €1,019,000.00 34%

2

Puglia Region – Economic Development

Department – Research and competitiveness unit Puglia Region FB1 €140,680.00 5%

3

Regional Economic Development Agency for

Sumadija and Pomoravlje Serbia FB2 €100,000.00 3%

4 IDA Croatia FB3 €221,500.00 7%

5 Chamber of Economy of Montenegro Montenegro FB4 €191,500.00 6%

6 Association for Economic Development REDAH BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA FB5 €142,000.00 5%

7

University of Donja Gorica, Faculty of

Information Systems and Technologies Montenegro FB6 €191,500.00 6%

8 Regional Council of Shkodra Albania FB7 €210,000.00 7%

9 City of Sibenik Croatia FB8 €381,500.00 13%

10

Faculty of Agriculture and Food Technology,

University of Mostar BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA FB9 €191,500.00 6%

11 Foundation “Partnership for Development” Albania FB10 €210,000.00 7%

Total €2,999,180.00 100%

Table 15. Next Project Budget in amount and in % distributed per Partner’s 2012-2015.


115

Budget status

(in EUR)

Approved

budget

(according to

the AF)

Reported

amount

(cumulative

amount of all

previous

progress

reports)

Eligible

amount

Refundable

amount

Remaining

amount

Foreseen

amount to be

spent in the

next 6 months

according to

the

commitments

already taken

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e=a-c)

LB € 997.850,00 € 732.411,12 € 732.411,12 € 732.411,12 € 265.438,88 € 265.438,88

FB1 - Foundation

Partnership for

Development

€ 201.945,18 € 139.962,34 € 135.131,02 € 135.131,02 € 66.814,16 € 66.814,15

FB2 - Faculty of Agriculture

and Food Technology,

University of Mostar

€ 182.152,69 € 94.676,08 € 86.205,45 € 85.912,34 € 95.947,24 € 72.948,80


FB 4 - Regional Council of

Skhodra € 196.605,69 € 65.308,70 € 60.062,37 € 58.188,82 € 136.543,32 € 115.302,33

FB 5 - University of Donja

Gorica, Faculty of

Information Systems and

Technologies

€ 178.803,98 € 91.662,82 € 59.814,98 € 50.828,40 € 118.989,00 € 60.176,27

FB 6 - Association for

Economic Development

REDAH

€ 131.092,43 € 99.997,69 € 89.188,51 € 87.556,14 € 41.903,92 € 13.787,00

FB 7- Montenegro

Chamber of Economy € 168.445,77 € 87.872,64 € 70.812,83 € 70.018,24 € 97.632,94 € 77.162,79

FB 8 - Istrian Developmen

Agency € 207.557,66 € 112.969,40 € 105.656,98 € 105.457,88 € 101.900,68 € 101.539,73


116

FB 9 - Regional Economic

Development Agency for

Sumadija and Pomoravlje

€ 98.983,69 € 69.993,44 € 65.757,45 € 62.738,66 € 33.226,24

€ 41.209,06*

(if overbudget

approved)

FB 10 - Puglia Region -

Economic Development

Department - Research


€ 124.660,81 € 62.539,77 € 23.653,11 € 23.653,11 € 101.007,70 € 59.442,85

Total eligible cost € 2.846.802,76 € 1.817.895,51 € 1.685.445,40 € 1.668.072,21 € 1.161.357,37 € 915.001,37

Table 16. Summary of the Project Financial Progress November 2014-April 2015.

The abovementioned criticality had a greater impact on the analysis of financial data that has

been carried on by the evaluator, also stemming as a bottleneck encountered by beneficiaries

from field analysis: “since the start of the project the financial issues have been a problem with

the implementation of the project, which was during the other phases as well 2014 and 2015.

The delayed financing process has been the financial problem during the project implementation.

As far as WP’s are concerned, the 20%, 18%, 16%, 16% of financial resources have been allocated

to the project core WPs, namely WP1 “Cross border Project Management and Coordination”,

WP2 “Communication and Dissemination”, WP4 “Online Platform” and WP5 “Common Services

based on the online platform” so as they have been considered the most relevant ones in terms

of investments and impacts on cooperation area.


117

WP 0 Project Preparation €30,120.00 1%

WP 1 Cross border Project Management and Coordination €556,985.50 20%

WP 2 Communication and Dissemination €508,013.21 18%

WP 3 Preparatory actions for the activation of the platform €367,943.88 13%

WP 4 Online Platform €455,394.20 16%

WP 5 Common Services based on the online platform €446,157.55 16%

WP 6 Promotion and investment opportunities €272,991.99 10%

WP 7

Project capitalization: recommendations for the

sustainability of the collaboration platform and

policy indications €209,196.55 7%

Table 17. Budget distributed per WP’s


118

Figure 5. Budget per WP’s 0-7 in %

The 20% and 18% of project’s financial resources have been addressed to WP1 (Cross border

Project Management and Coordination) and WP2 (Communication and Dissemination), already

pre‐defined in the project application form, emphasizing the key role of project management,

coordination and communication activities but, at the same time, overestimating impacts on

these kind of activities as per the importance of such activities on the whole project phases. In

WP 0 Project Preparation,

1%

WP 1 Crossborder Project Management

and Coordination, 20%

WP 2 Communication and Dissemination,

18%

WP 3 Preparatory actions for the

activation of the platform, 13%

WP 4 Online Platform, 16%

WP 5 Common services based on the online

platform, 16%

WP 6 Promotion and investment

opportunities, 10%

WP 7 Project capitalization: recommendations for the

sustainability of the collaboration platform and

policy indications, 7%

Budget per WP 0-7 in %


119

particular, WP1 presents a percentage of 20 % on total budget, corresponding to almost the

double of the budget percentage allocation to the WP6 (Promotions and Investments

Opportunities) of the Programme. From the evaluator point of view the total percentage of such

WPs should be more or less around the 15% of total budget, arising to 20% when communication

and dissemination activities are all managed within WP2. To this respect, considering the wide

spreading of communication activities within all project’s WPs, the sum dedicated to project

management and communication appears to be duly justified, not creating hitches in financial

balances among WPs.

The following table shows a detailed analysis of the original financial framework (per partner and

WP) approved by the Programme Managing Authority and Joint Monitoring Committee.

no Partner's name Country ID WP0 WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6 WP7 Total %

1

Marche

Regional

Authority Marche Region LP €10,000.00

€88,709

.80

€251,09

9.00

€130,66

5.00

60,976.

51

275,690

.24

138,583

.89

42,125.

67

€997,850

.11

35.0

5%

2 Puglia Region Puglia Region PP1 €1,500.00

€40,052

.00

€30,393

.00

€14,910

.00

€18,393

.00

€14,036

.00

€15,236

.00

€67,425

.18

€201,945

.18

7.09

%

3 City of Sibenik Croatia PP2 €1,500.00

€62,873

.00

€24,605

.69

€20,610

.00

€23,070

.00

€20,441

.00

€21,249

.00

€7,804.

00

€182,152

.69

6.40

%

4 IDA Croatia PP3 €1,500.00

€47,921

.93

€22,204

.00

€46,499

.29

€217,03

9.44

€11,651

.71

€8,368.

50

€3,520.

00

€358,704

.87

12.6

0%

5

Chamber of

Economy of

Montenegro Montenegro PP4 €1,500.00

€40,230

.99

€34,756

.00

€11,949

.00

€22,859

.00

€17,558

.00

€11,557

.00

56,195.

70

€196,605

.69

6.91

%

6

University of

Donja Gorica, Montenegro PP5 €1,500.00

€56,549

.18

€28,466

.60

€19,410

.00

€23,509

.00

€21,142

.60

€20,422

.60

€7,804.

00

€178,803

.98

6.28

%

7

Regional

Council of

Shkodra Albania PP6 €1,500.00

€43,829

.00

€13,116

.75

€29,286

.68

€14,272

.00

€12,701

.00

€10,873

.00

€5,514.

00

€131,092

.43

4.60

%

8

University of

Mostar

BOSNIA-

HERZEGOVINA PP7 €1,500.00

€39,683

.60

€35,888

.17

€17,470

.00

€21,084

.00

€27,008

.00

€18,728

.00

€7,084.

00

€168,445

.77

5.92

%


120

9 REDAH

BOSNIA-

HERZEGOVINA PP8 €6,720.00

€51,008

.00

€47,554

.00

€49,822

.41

€16,921

.25

€20,422

.00

€11,910

.00

€3,200.

00

€207,557

.66

7.29

%

10

Regional

Economic

Development

Agency for

Sumadija and

Pomoravlje Serbia PP9 €1,500.00

€48,008

.00

€11,630

.00

€11,915

.69

€11,670

.00

€7,580.

00

€4,860.

00

€1,820.

00

€98,983.

69

3.48

%

11

Foundation

“Partnership

for

Development” Albania

PP1

0 €1,400.00

€38,120

.00

€8,300.

00

€15,405

.81

€25,600

.00

€17,927

.00

€11,204

.00

€6,704.

00

€124,660

.81

4.38

%

Tot

al €30,120.00

€556,98

5.50

€508,01

3.21

€367,94

3.88

€455,39

4.20

€446,15

7.55

€272,99

1.99

€209,19

6.55

€2,846,8

02.88

% 1.06% 19.57% 17.85% 12.92% 16.00% 15.67% 9.59% 7.35%

Table 18. Detailed analysis of the original financial framework (per partner and WP).


121

Figure 6. Detailed analysis of the original financial framework (per partner and WP).

€0.00

€50,000.00

€100,000.00

€150,000.00

€200,000.00

€250,000.00

€300,000.00

LP PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 PP6 PP7 PP8 PP9 PP10

Chart Title

WP0 WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6 WP7


122

6. ANALYSIS OF PROJECT RESULTS

6.1 ANALYSIS OF THE INDICATORS SYSTEM

The overview on project indicators’ system aims at providing the partners with useful hints to

support the process of project activities’ monitoring and control within the implementation of a

new project proposal. The main objective of such an evaluation research is to verify the system

of indicators’ reliability with reference to project’s objectives. From a methodological point of

view, the evaluator has focused his analysis on the observation of the degree of coherence

between objectives and indicators following the Project Cycle Management (PCM) approach

which states that the role of indicators is “to describe general and specific objectives and results

in operational terms. By specifying indicators as quantifiable measures, they act as instruments

aiming to control the objectives’ achievement and represent the base for the monitoring

system”.

According to the PCM’s approach, a good indicator has to be objectively verifiable, allowing the examination of different levels of objectives in an operational, concise and reliable way. It is therefore essential for indicators to have an explanatory power representing a suitable benchmark for the formulation of an assessment about the grade of effectiveness of the intervention taken into consideration, that is to say, about the results achieved keeping in mind a given objective. Given these premises and taking into account the objective of verifying the suitability of NEXT Project’s indicators, the evaluator had recourse to methodological instructions known in scientific literature as the S.M.A.R.T Indicators:

Specific for the objectives that the indicator aims to observe;

Measurable both in quantitative and qualitative terms;

Available at reasonable costs;

Relevant with regard to the in formative needs;

Time‐bound.


123

The following table gives evidence to a brief description of S.M.A.R.T. criteria as well as to the

identified assessment parameters and their connected scores.

Table 19 ‐ Description of the S.M.A.R.T. criteria’s methodology

SMART Criterion Assessment Parameter

Specific

Indicator related to the objectives that intends to

measure and able to give useful and appropriate

information

1) Does the indicator give appropriate information relating to the

objectives that it intends to measure? (1 point)

2) Is the indicator significant? (1 point)

3) Is the indicator clear and easily understandable? (1 point)

Measurable

Indicator suitable to be quantified, observed and analyzed

1) Can the indicator be observed through a clear measuring

method/instrument? (1 point)

2) Can the indicator be numerically quantified? (1 point)

3) Can the indicator be measured through primary or secondary

informative sources? (1 point)

Available

The information used to quantify the indicator are available at

reasonable costs

1) Can the indicator be measured through available information? (1

point)

2) Are the necessary information available at reasonable costs

according to the “saving principle”? (1 point)

3) Are the necessary information easily achievable? (1 point)

Relevant

Indicator able to measure the phenomenon for which it has been

proposed

1) Does the indicator suitably measure the analyzed objectives? (1

point)

2) Does the indicator give information about the characteristics and

the added value of project? (1 point)

3) Is the indicator connected to the informative needs of the

project’s management structures and relevant stakeholders? (1

point)

Time‐bound 1) Can the indicator be referred to punctual span of time? (1 point)


124

Indicator duly put into temporal bounds 2) Is the indicator repeatable? (1point)

3) Can the indicator be processed, rapidly and easily updated with

reference to the objectives analyzed? (1point)

Explanatory score list: 1=LOW, 2=MEDIUM, 3=HIGH

Based to the following tables the detailed analysis on each indicator listed within the last Project

Progress Report through S.M.A.R.T. Analysis, some considerations are given. It has been

envisaged the Projects’ indicators are in coherence with Programme’s indicators, which gives

support in assessing the results reached by IPA Adriatic CBC as a whole. For each indicator, a

target value is identified, while only “previous cumulative total” is envisaged, not considering

baselines. Moreover, data sources are not specified for each indicator.

The application of the S.M.A.R.T. criteria methodology to output indicators enabled the evaluator

to detect the high level of measurability specificity and availability of data to be monitored ‐ being

them directly linked to activities ‐ as well as the punctual definition of indicators’ temporal

bounds. Nevertheless, some indicators are neither specific nor relevant. Thus, indicators like

“Other information and promotion tools: twitter, quarterly newsletter, elaboration of leaflets,

brochures” within WP2 seem very general and difficult to be monitored. Moreover, indicators

related to events occurred only once in project life cycle (e.g. “Appointment of a Project

Manager” WP 1; “Communication and information management protocol” in WP2; “Design

preparation of the project logo and communication layout‐ logo and templates” in WP2;

“Definition of the agreements for implementing the strategy” in WP6; “Marketing plan to address

cross border territory” in WP7) appear to be very relevant. The understanding of the meaning of

the WP3 indicator “Spread of the acquis communitaire among Countries in the Adriatic area” and

“Strengthening project management capacity of partners through the use of instruments and

procedures which can be used also in other contexts” are quite difficult. Finally, the number of

indicators, especially within certain WP’s is too high to monitor efficaciously project activities’

advancements.


125

Table 20. S.M.A.R.T Analyses of Output/Result Indicators

Output Indicators/Result Indicators Compliance with S.M.A.R.T Criteria

Output Indicators

WP 1: Cross-border Project Management and

Coordination

Opinion of the Evaluator

High/Medium/Low – H/M/L

No. of Kick off meetings organized

No. of Project Organizational Chart Bodies

No. of the Next Action Plan

No. of Quality Control Plan

No. Progress Reports

No. Final report

No. Progress Reports per partner

No. Project's meeting

No. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

No. Interim evaluation Report

No. Final evaluation Report

No. of Tenders

No. of Contracts

• M ‐ H ‐ H ‐ H ‐L

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ H ‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ H ‐H

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ H ‐H

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ H ‐H

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ H ‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M ‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ H ‐H

• M ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M ‐L

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ L ‐L

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ H ‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M ‐L

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M ‐L

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M ‐L


126

Result Indicators

WP 1: Cross-border Project Management and

Coordination



Strengthening project management capacity of partners through the

use of instruments and procedures which can be used also in other

contexts.

Spread of the acquis communitaire among Countries in the Adriatic

area.

• M ‐ H ‐ H ‐ H ‐L

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ H ‐M

Output Indicators

WP2: Communication and Dissemination Opinion of the Evaluator

• High/Medium/Low – H/M/L

No. Communication and dissemination plan.

No. Project's website.

All beneficiaries’ No. participation on local/ national/ international

Events.

No. project's Cross- Border Conferences

No. other promotion and dissemination tools

All beneficiaries No. events and Press conferences.

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M ‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ H ‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M ‐L

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M ‐L

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M ‐L

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M ‐L

Result Indicators

WP2: Communication and Dissemination Opinion of the Evaluator



127

Widespread knowledge about the project and its results at local /

regional / national and international level

Contribution to cooperation improvement, both in quantitative and

qualitative terms, by exchanging best practices, results

development, etc.

Increased interest in the platform and boost for active participation

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M ‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ M ‐ M ‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M ‐M

Output Indicators

• WP 3: Preparatory actions for the activation

of the platform



No. Report on each territorial context

No. Local workshop

No. frame system report

No. prototype RTTC mapping

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ H‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ M‐ M‐M

Result Indicators

• WP 3: Preparatory actions for the activation

of the platform



Compliance of the online platform and services with the

expectations and needs of the territories and of the cooperation

area.

Prevent that the poor visibility of the actors and activities of

research and technology transfer leads enterprises to act out of the

innovation circuit.

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ H‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M‐M


128

Output Indicators

WP 4: Online Platform Opinion of the Evaluator


No. Technical and functional specifications

No. Online platform

No. Analysis tools of platform use

• H ‐ H ‐ M ‐ M‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ H‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M‐M

Result Indicators

WP 4: Online Platform Opinion of the Evaluator


Facilitating and speeding up of relations between RTTCs, enterprises

and researchers

Project showcase, through organization and return of the knowledge

elements available.

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ H‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ M ‐ L‐M

Output Indicators

WP 5: Common services based on the online

platform



No. Next-Box Basic services

No. Next-Box Advanced services

No. Indications and suggestions for the improvement of services and

relations

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M‐M


129

Result Indicators

WP 5: Common services based on the online

platform



Creation of clusters of competence to enhance the research capacity

through synergetic actions

Creation of links among RTTCs and the productive system of the

cooperation area (enhancement and transfer of academic

knowledge, strengthening relations which are preparatory to

technology transfer)

Improvement of RTTCs positioning in the market, in terms of skills,

visibility, relationships, growth in size and networking

Identification of technological sectors relevant for the territories, but

especially for the cooperation area in order to develop cluster

policies and collocation in supply chains

Development of enterprises absorption capacity, i.e. of the level of

skills that enable the dialogue with the RTTCs

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ H ‐ M‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ M ‐ M‐L

• H ‐ H ‐ M ‐ M‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ M ‐ M‐M

Output Indicators

WP 6: Promotion and investment opportunities Opinion of the Evaluator


No. Speed date events by territory.

No. Participants, divided into demand and supply.

• H ‐ H ‐ M ‐ M‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ M ‐ M‐M

•


130

No. Activated 'paths' for each territory.

No. Suggestions and indications provided.

• H ‐ H ‐ M ‐ M‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ M ‐ M‐M

Result Indicators

WP 6: Promotion and investment opportunities Opinion of the Evaluator


Start of relations between enterprises and RTTC.

Expressions of interest from financing subjects for the initiatives

presented.

• H ‐ H ‐ M ‐ M‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ M ‐ M‐M

Output Indicators

WP 7: Project capitalization: recommendations

for the sustainability of the collaboration




No. Next Suite Business plan

No. Next Outlook report

• H ‐ H ‐ M ‐ M‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ M ‐ M‐M

Result Indicators

WP 7: Project capitalization: recommendations

for the sustainability of the collaboration




Expression of interest from financing subjects (institutions,

Development Agencies, private entities, etc.) on the cooperative

platform

Contributions to the institutional stakeholders to increasingly take

on the role of stimulating, connecting and strengthening R&I policies

of each territory and of the area.

• H ‐ H ‐ M ‐ M‐M

• H ‐ H ‐ M ‐ M‐M


131

Priority 1

Output indicators Previous

cumulative total Current period

Updated cumulative

total

No° of research activities supported 6 8 14

No° of RTD/Innovation networks

created 33 7 40

No° of university/research centers

involved 37 11 48

No° of SMEs assisted of which: 189 1611 1800

No° of female SMEs assisted; 6 16 22

No° of SMEs developing

environmental products 8 5 13

No° of new companies assisted of

which: 9 19 28

No° of female SMEs assisted; 6 6 12

No° of SMEs developing

environmental products 2 2 4


132

No° of projects developing

collaboration in the field of public

services.

4 5 9

No° of people participating in joint

education or training activities. 626 309 935

No° and type of facilities improved

(social, health, labor) 1 1 2

No° of activities strengthening

institutional capacity. 14 2 16

Result indicators Previous

cumulative total Current period

Updated cumulative

total

No° of new

services/products/process developed

with cross-border partners

15 8 23

Table 21. The table provides detailed information how the project has measured the

achieved Programme’s outputs/results.

The application of S.M.A.R.T. analysis to result indicators enabled the evaluator to detect some

criticalities. Part of indicators appears difficult to measure and more similar to

objectives/activities than to indicators.

Result indicators are variables that provide information on some specific aspects of results that

lend themselves to be measured. Selecting clear result indicators facilitates the understanding of

the problem and the policy need and a later judgement about whether or not objectives have

been met. The application of S.M.A.R.T. analysis to result indicators enabled the evaluator to

detect some criticalities if there is any. Part of indicators appears somehow difficult to measure


133

and more similar to objectives/activities than to indicators. Result indicators should describe the

most immediate effects on beneficiaries and outputs produced by the project; nevertheless,

some of them are nearer to impact indicators, being unable to fully describe the degree of

achievement of the specific objectives they relate to. Result indicators are variables that provide

information on some specific aspects of results that lend themselves to be measured. Selecting

clear result indicators facilitates the understanding of the problem and the policy need and a

later judgement about whether or not objectives have been met.


134

6.2 EVALUATION OF PROJECT OUTPUTS AND RESULTS

The goal of this paragraph is to provide an analysis of project’s achievements, with the support

of the output and results indicators reported in the 6th Project Progress Report (PPR).This

analysis is based on data gathered for each Work Package, as well as per project as a whole, since

some considerations on the contribution of NEXT Project in reaching Programme’s results could

be elaborated so far. A description stemming from the data gathered from the project website

and on direct discussions with the partners is provided in the previous paragraphs and in the

following as well.

As far as Programme’s output and result indicators are concerned, Next Project has implemented

all the foreseen indicators, well contributing to the achievement of Programme’s objectives.

Concerning output indicators per WP’s, within WP1“Cross-border Project Management and

Coordination” targets have been reached for most part of foreseen indicators. The number of

Steering Committees meetings organized” are the 100% realized. The project’s extension, so as

to intensify further promotional activities and to conclude expenditures, allowed a better

performance of such an indicator whose target will be very probably reached at the end of

project’s activities. Besides, it is worth outlining that the set number of Steering Groups is

probably the normal needed for this project to be reached and do really contributes actively to a

better performance of activities. Other ways of exchange of experiences have been

strengthening project management capacity of partners through the use of instruments and

procedures which can be used also in other contexts and Spread of the acquis communitaire

among Countries in the Adriatic area on a few themes seems to be more efficacious and time

saving.

The 6th and final NEXT Project Steering Committee meeting, held in Ancona on 9th of July 2015,

had traced the main lines for the future of a common system for sharing open data in the matter

of innovation, start-ups and European project for applied researches and prototyping.


135

During all Project and especially at the end part the discussions have been elaborated about

problems, solutions and opportunities represented by NEXT-IS platform. It was so important such

discussion between partners to understand which are the areas and items of improvement of a

project that is going to contribute in a relevant way to the coming transnational cooperation

programme in the Adriatic-Ionian European territorial cooperation area.

The “Research, innovation and SMEs development” is the cross-cutting area of Strategy of

Adriatic-Ionian Macro-region and of course of the new ETC Programme “Adrion” which is the

main European programme of this area with its 99,2 millions of Euro (83,5 mln. of ERDF plus 15,7

mln. of IPA).

Moreover, ETC Adrion Programme with the scope to reach its thematic objective 1, within the

priority axe 1 it represent the main opportunity for specific project addressed to innovation and

smart development. Surely, NEXT is the ancestor of these future projects with its heritage and

potentiality to develop the “open data” exchange system moving towards the Adriatic-Ionian

Cloud common system.

Therefore, Marche Region will host the platform without any additional costs for the partners

and make it stay open for additional 4-5 years. Also partners will promote towards their local

stakeholder to continue to use and populate NEXT-IS platform and post news to NEXT-Blog.

Open innovation is going to became a reality through NEXT-IS platform and Marche Cloud.

Finally, another recommendation for the NEXT Project is the possibility to have for the coming

three years, the project website on-line. The NEXT website and its important public repository of

main outputs produced during the project implementation by the partnership will be maintained

for next 3 years. In this way, it is possible to continue to publish and download documents from

the public repository and use them for new project proposals.

As far as WP2: “Communication and Dissemination” is concerned, many of foreseen targets

have been overtaken, so as they should have been pondered over:


136

No. Communication and dissemination plan.

No. Project's website.

All beneficiaries’ No. participation on local/ national/ international Events.

No. project's Cross- Border Conferences

No. other promotion and dissemination tools

All beneficiaries No. events and Press conferences.

N° of articles/appearances in press and media

N° of participants in events

Average no° of visits per month on project's website

No. of posts and articles on the web

No. of participants to conferences and meetings

No. of stakeholders involved in the project

No. of accesses to the online platform

Table 22. Results of the Evaluation of Output’s per WP’s

WP’s Outputs Output % achieved

WP 1: Cross-border Project

Management and Coordination

• Project Organizational Chart

• Kick off meeting

• The Next Action Plan (AP)

• The Quality Plan (QP)

• The Management Pack (MP)

• The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

• Tenders and contracts

• 100%

• 100%

• 100%

• 100%

• 100%

• 95%

• 90%

WP2: Communication and

Dissemination

• Communication Plan

• The project website

• Participation on

local/national/international Events

• Events and press conferences

• Cross-border conferences

• 100%

• 100%

• 85%


137

• Other information and promotion

tools: twitter, quarterly newsletter,

elaboration of leaflets, brochures.

• 85%

• 95%

• 95%

WP 3: Preparatory actions for

the activation of the platform

• NEXT trend

• NEXT open book

• The Requirements Specification of

the NEXT IS

• 100%

• 100%

• 100%

WP 4: Online Platform • Technical and functional

specifications.

• NEXT IS - The online platform "NEXT

IS"

• Meetings for the presentation of the

online Platform, meetings will be

operational and will illustrate the

features and modalities of use of the

online platform aiming to facilitate

its use by different targets.

• 100%

• 100%

• 100%

• 90%

WP 5: Common services based

on the online platform

• Next Box-Basic services

• Creation of links among RTTCs and

the productive system of the

cooperation area (enhancement and

transfer of academic knowledge,

strengthening relations which are

preparatory to technology transfer)

• Next Box-Advanced services

• 90%

• 85%

• 90%

• 90%


138

• Indications and suggestions for the

improvement of services and

relations

WP 6: Promotion and

investment opportunities

• Business speed dating events (at

least one per Country) organized to

bring together Research centers and

enterprises in order to match needs

and solutions.

• Investment Booster-Finance: Events

for the presentation of innovative

initiatives to financial investors (at

least one per Country).

• Indications and suggestions for the

promotion of investment

opportunities.

• 90%

• 100%

• 90%

WP 7: Project capitalization:

recommendations for the

sustainability of the

collaboration platform and

policy indication

• Next suite – a business plan that can

be presented to public and/or

private bodies to verify the interest

in investing in the future

implementation and continuity of

the collaborative platform.

• Next Outlook: It is an evaluation

report, which includes: - control of

the outputs and results achieved by

the collaborative platform.

• 100%

• 100%


139

Nevertheless, this performances shows the great effort put in the strengthening of WP2:

Communication and Dissemination, targets to be achieved, it was successfully finalized and

implemented:

Communication Plan:

The document states the overall communications objectives, target groups, specific

objectives for each target group, main activities and communication tools, indicators of

achievement and human and financial resources. In order to prove the effectiveness of the

implementation of the Communication Plan, evaluation analysis on the achievement of the

foreseen objectives will be carried out based on a limited set of indicators for output and

results.

The project website is an excellent promotional tool, able to draw the attention of a wide

number of target groups and the broad general public.

The blog developed and fully active contain relevant information about the project, its

progress, contact information, project achievements and results. It has been be regularly

updated during the project lifetime and need to do the same after the project as well from

all partners. It contain: link to the Programme website, title and summary of the project,

names of all Final Beneficiaries, Programme logo and European flag, disclaimer, links to

main EU websites related to research as it was forecasted during the analyses phase.

Events and press conferences.

Local public events (Workshops, seminars, visits, etc.) have been so useful organized almost

from all partners not only to provide information but also to receive feedbacks from the

audience. The events have been carefully planned defining aims, budget planning, setting

dates, preparing the agenda, list of participants, structuring the development of the event,

always respecting the publicity requirements. In combination with the territorial events

press conferences have been organized for the mainstream and sectorial media, to amplify

the message, press kits and information packs for media have been prepared.

Cross-border conferences:

The first has been held in the initial phases and it aimed to present the initiative to the

greatest number of stakeholders in the area involved; the second, in the closure phase,


140

ensured the effective dissemination of results and stimulated considerations on the

capitalization modalities and the possible transferability of the system to other

territories/sectors. The events have been carefully planned defining aims, budget planning,

setting dates, preparing the agenda, list of participants, structuring the development of the

event, always respecting publicity requirements. The events have been linked with media

communications (e.g. press releases, press conferences).

WP3: Preparatory actions for the activation of the platform

NEXT trend:

It was already developed and delivered and uploaded to the Project Web page as well the

summary report that identifies, for each of the territories involved, the strategic sectors of the

economy, the level of technological intensity, the results of excellence in research and

innovation, investment opportunities, supporting public policies.

It has been achieved the Compliance of the online platform and services with the expectations

and needs of the territories and of the cooperation area.

NEXT open book:

It was already developed and delivered and uploaded to the Project Web page as well the

Repository of RTTCs that consistently described the existing technological skills and innovation

potential in the territories. It represented an analytic collection of information aiming to

provide an easy reference tool for those seeking specific competences for starting and

developing innovative projects. As an example, the information contained therein has been

referred to: - Specific objectives of the Centres, - Scientific and Technological sectors in which

they operate, - Services offered to the market, - Productive sectors to which their activity is

addressed, - Turnover, - Number of researchers. The Repository have represented a marketing

tool for the users (researchers and enterprises), the scientific and the institutional community.

This documents and the whole process prevented that the poor visibility of the actors and

activities of research and technology transfer leads enterprises to act out of the innovation

circuit.


141

The Requirements Specification document covered the following points as per the plans:

• functional description of the platform services;

• access modality to the service (e.g. via web portal, etc.);

• type and profile of users;

• determination of any retention policies of the backup data;

• any specifications of integrations with other applications/ services;

• minimum security requirements to ensure: integrity, privacy of the data both in the

communication, and in custody and access, fully compliant to existing regulations;

• availability timeframe;

•the required service levels, performance requirements, monitoring and reporting;

• characteristics of the user support service

WP 4: On Line Platforme

Technical and functional specifications.

The document contains a technical and functional description of:

• technical architecture, i.e. hardware/ software and other requirements for the provision of

services;

• functional architecture of the service, i.e. the service with its control characteristics and

methods;

• security plan, i.e. the technical and organizational criteria for the protection of areas and

data. It allows the analysis of the application with respect to: processes and ways to disclose

them to the final users, logical design of the data according to the relational model, non-

functional aspects (architecture, security, constraints, performance, etc..), interfaces

documentation.

The level of completeness will be such to allow: • approval of the functionalities by project coordinators; • implementation of subsequent development phases;

• traceability in relation to the requirements description.


142

NEXT IS - The online platform

"NEXT IS" have realized as it planned the following features:

search system allow access to the data of the system and elaboration of customized ranking

according to the search parameters;

reporting is useful for different users with high communication impact and innovative

graphics solutions;

intelligent application for monitoring funding opportunities;

library for storing and consulting the documentation;

"files/ thematic paths" to organize and enhance the information available on the platform,

ensuring maximum fruibility;

Specific tools for “web 2.0” interaction;

REST or SOAP services for possible integration with external platforms (e.g. Marche

Innovation Portal, etc.).

The usability and the satisfaction level of the platform have been verified thanks to periodic

"think aloud" tests to samples of users, representative of the targets. The results have been

enable the improvement of the interface on the web page.

Meetings for the presentation of the online platform have organized continuously. The

partners have provided for the organization of meetings in their territories in order to

present NEXT IS and stimulate the participation of RTTCs, enterprises and researchers. The

meetings have been operational and have illustrated the features and modalities of use of

the online platform aiming to facilitate its use by different targets.

Project showcase, through organization and return of the knowledge elements was

available as well.

WP 5: Common services based on the online platform

Next Box-Basic services:

It is the package of basic services that are offered to participants (centers, universities,

development agencies) and users (enterprises and researchers). These services are

designed not only to facilitate and support the creation of links between the different


143

actors of innovation, but also to return the actual benefits to individual participants in

terms of adequate visibility, dissemination of knowledge, support for interests and/or

specific needs.

As an example they include:

Community: a space moderated on a daily basis that can facilitate the growth of each

center and researcher as well as the exchange of experiences with colleagues from the

entire area

Library: archive of documents and national and international relevant sources, on research,

innovation and technology transfer •Blog

News and Events

Collection and selection of researchers’ thesis and preparation of information summaries

on university thesis in research sectors relevant to the area

Next Box-Advanced services:

Package of advanced services made available on the online platform:

Thematic outlook: combines qualitative and statistical analysis with authoritative sources

by topic, sector or territory; in a streamlined and user-friendly format, with the aim of

deepening the reference context, obtaining valuable information for the relationship,

receiving inputs useful in developing the business

Radar for innovation: a self-assessment test, based on an instrument designed by 3

professors of the Kellogg School of Management Northwestern University (Illinois). The test

allows RTTC to assess their position in relation to some key variables of the innovation

processes

Other services (support to matching demand and supply of services/projects/solutions;

monitoring funding opportunities; supporting academic spin-offs on innovation; supporting

the mobility of researchers in the Adriatic area; marketing actions on research projects and

patents)


144

WP 6: Promotion and investment opportunities

Business speed dating events have been organized at least one per Country some countries

even more to bring together Research centers and enterprises in order to match needs and

solutions. The optimal number of participants have not exceed 20 for each type (centers

and enterprises).

Materials in support of the event have been:

• Research Survey:

Reports highly targeted on to the needs of enterprises and on the services that the Centers

can provide, identifying skills, areas of application, structure information (research,

turnover, infrastructures) and contact points.

This report has been based on the data on the online platform.

• Industry Monitor: fiches aimeded at the presentation of enterprises which participate in the

even (sectors, data on exports and international markets, features, special matching

indications). The reports have been available in printed copies and online on the platform.

WP 7: Project capitalization: recommendations for the sustainability of the collaboration


Next suite

The business plan that can be presented to public and/or private bodies to verify the interest

in investing in the future implementation and continuity of the collaborative platform.

In particular, the document includes:

the executive summary, which will list clearly and concisely all the most important issues;

the experience gained with the NEXT project;

the innovation reference context in the involved areas - the strategy: the business plan

"core" as it allows to evaluate the objectives of the collaborative platform and the

steps/optimizations expected to achieve them;

the economic-financial projections.


145

The document has been drafted taking into account the objective of "selling" a complex

project, it’s concise, logical and clear and finalized from Albanian PfD of the NEXT Project. A

presentation of it was done during the final meeting in Italy 6th Steering Committee Meeting.

Next Outlook:

It is an evaluation report, which includes:

control of the outputs and results achieved by the collaborative platform;

Identification and creation of models of some successful experiences carried out in

support of innovation;

Proposals for improvement areas to be reported to the Programme Authority, taking into

account the effects and impacts that the project will have on the Programme and vice

versa;

Directions for policy development on innovation, research and higher education both

within the national Operational Programs financed by the Structural Funds, and for

improving the ability to align with EU policies and targets in the field of research and

innovation, and for the development of shared policies in the Cross-border area.

The other Albanian Partner worked on this report in Collaboration with the Evaluation

Next Project Team from European University of Tirana.


146

6.3 NEXT-IS PERSPECTIVE OF THE ON LINE PLATFORM

The joint assessment of the partners was appreciation for the quality of the NEXT IS platform.

Although it was a fairly long process, the wealth of content that have already been loaded by the

partners it is a wealth of information on the rare countries in the macro region. Waiting for it to

be operational platform, the Committee decided and started the blog online (blog.adriatic-

next.eu), using the platform of the Marche Region dedicated to innovation: Marche Innovation

that is operational since 2009. The two areas have functioned as a training ground for partners

and have collected information and data that gradually were generated by the project.

The on-line platform of NEXT-IS allowed to duplicate the data and information on the two

environments. Now, with the end of the project, the idea is to finalize differently the three

environments:

NEXT-IS will continue to be managed as social platform, where exchange ideas, projects

and data and create conversations aiming at the establishment of possible joint

measures;

The platforms will be hosted at the end of the project on the cloud of the Marche Region,

solving the problem of sustainability of the platforms, as regards the content produced

by the project, and in the meantime Marche Innovation will continue becoming the

repository of project data;

The blog will continue becoming a place for reports and news;

The partners have decided for an agreement laying down the operation principles of the platform

NEXT IS, stressing its collaborative mission and the strategic context of the Adriatic Ionian macro-

region. At this moment, it is important to give a perspective of future development: the NEXT-IS

platform must be alive, have to be continually updated in content and be filled with ideas and

initiatives coming from the territories of Partners maybe increasing the Partners area to the

http://blog.adriatic-next.eu/next-is-future-perspective-for-the-on-line-platform-by-antonio-santangelo/


147

future Projects to be implemented. It is therefore important that relations born in NEXT to be

continued and be kept lively and further developed.

One possible solution is that the partners develop local clones of NEXT IS, so they are in the local

language sections of the platform, making it accessible to as many local people as possible. NEXT

IS would serve as a federal site, managing therefore interregional relations.

NEXT activities have increased the capacity of local SMEs in accessing EU financing opportunities

and in developing knowledge and skills for better approaching the private equity market. All of

this positively impacting on the public/private funds absorption capacity of the Marche Region

territory and in all NEXT Partners territory.

The project NEXT has provided and still provides the primary tools for moving strategy into action

and for coordinating innovation policies at Macro regional level, overcoming fragmentation.

NEXT-IS platform might be the mean for developing a synergic and coordinated governance of

the innovation process in the macro region.

As we mentioned since the beginning that the NEXT main objective was to address the innovation

and internationalization needs of the regional companies by:

the promotion and consolidation of the cooperation between Universities, Companies,

Researchers, Local Government;

the piloting of innovative mechanisms to support joint research, technology transfer and

business development in the Adriatic-Ionian area.

For achieving successfully its goals, the NEXT Project put in the network:

839 innovation actors, including SMEs and RTTCs, 109 of which currently active at Adriatic

– Ionian area level.

814 projects, 32 of which are implemented in the Adriatic – Ionian area.

17 private investors, willing to invest in start-ups and innovation projects in the Adriatic-

Ionian area.


148

NEXT Project provided a set of services and tools for improving the R&D capacity and

internationalization rate of SMEs and RTTCs located in the Adriatic Area:

1. NEXT IS: www.nextisplatform.eu, a collaborative on-line platform supporting the identification

of research partners, patents, R&D projects, investors and other information useful to:

Analyze business opportunities in the Adriatic Ionian area (NEXT Outlooks and Trends)

Get in contact with actors, who can sustain innovation and internationalization

processes in partner countries (NEXT Open book)

Be informed about financing opportunities supporting R&D projects and business

development in the Adriatic Ionian area (NEXT Blog).

2. NEXT Box: a set of guidance and tutoring services targeting SMEs willing to apply for grants in

the framework of EU Programs for basic and applied research projects, including the organization

of a match-making event to connect with potential partners.

The services provided includes: NEXT Info Point, a window providing information on the financing opportunities through

EU Programs and on services provided by the project NEXT. NEXT Info Desk Europe, a desk carrying out preliminary assessment of project ideas

developed to fit into European Programs, like Horizon 2020 and COSME as well as counselling.

3. NEXT Investment Booster, a set of guidance and tutoring services for the identification and

access to risk capital, targeting high growth potential start-ups.

Among the tutoring services the project offered the NEXT Pitch Elevator, a self-assessment tool

and a capacity building program for evaluating the market potential and attractiveness of

proposed business ideas and learning how to better present them to private investors.

Other events/activities and ad-hoc support provided by project partners, such us Business

plan competitions, and specialized consulting services for R&I.


149

Looking back at the past 3 years’ experience, the main challenges and lessons learned from project implementation, we can mention as follows:

To secure an active participation of companies and innovation actors, feeding the online platform with opportunities is crucial. In this sense and looking at future developments, a stronger contribution from local “newsrooms” able to spot and advertise into the platform regional opportunities should be envisaged.

To facilitate the “virtual transition” and engaging the target groups in online

collaboration, the face to face events organized during the project has been very

important.

Although Marche region experienced some problems in launching the first pilot with

NEXT-IS, is clear that the digital divide is still affecting Italian, Albanian, Montenegro,

Bosnia-Hercegovina, Croatia, and Serbia SMEs, hampering their capacity to fully exploit

the opportunities offered by the platform.

To support promising companies and startups in accessing financing opportunities,

particularly, those offered by the risk capital market, a stronger on site assistance for

developing their Investment readiness would be needed.

At the end of the NEXT Project it’s important to be raised some open questions related to both

the future sustainability and exploitation mechanisms of NEXT-IS platform in the framework of

the macro-region strategy. The analyze of other regional experiences of managing innovation

process making use of technological platforms is important and brings up some

recommendations for exploiting NEXT IS as a tool for the governance of the Adriatic-Ionian

Macro-region innovation strategy. Definitely Regional competitiveness is more and more based

on a national/macro regional perspective, in terms of both R&I and market development.

The key assumptions underpinning the design of the NEXT project are:

1. Innovation is a key factor for future SME’s competitiveness and growth

2. SME’s need to switch from a learning by doing model to a Science and Technology

Innovation model, based on a systematic application of scientific knowledge to product

design and production processes.


150

3. This transition brings two main consequences:

a) differently from the traditional model, the new model requires a stronger

interaction between industry, academy and government (Triple Helix model)

b) it is essential for firms, research centers and policy makers to know which kind of

research and technological competences are available within the region;

4. ICT offers us great opportunities to support the new model, by providing means to

represent the research and technological competences of firms and universities and by providing tools to facilitate the matching between supply and demand of technological knowledge. Although the opportunities are huge they are not easy to implement, as there are technological but also cultural, organizational and governance problems.

5. The level of integration of the IT platform with the regional eco-system: the higher the interconnection of the platform with the regional innovation players and with the regional innovation assets the better for the actual functioning of the service.

6. To lower complexity and to secure coordination, the option of federating with other existing regional, national and international platforms might be envisaged in order to exchange data and to share information on opportunities, policies and impacts. This will allow to scale up the platform potential and reach whilst preserving its regional profile.

7. To work on human resources development for enabling a full usage of the ICT tool and for driving a cultural change among the triple actors towards a more entrepreneurial innovation culture.

8. The importance of developing a more entrepreneurial innovation culture, able to look beyond regional boarders, and at the same time the proper tool to facilitate cooperation in the macro-region.

9. National and local governments are more and more committed to support technology transfer and innovation in their regions and they recognize that the regional dimension (though important) is not sufficient.


151

It is becoming crucial to promote exchanges, not only of good and services, but also of

knowledge, of scientific and technological competences. NEXT-IS might be the right mean

assuming that companies will accept the challenge to move from a learning by doing innovation

model to a more structured and complex process based on the interaction and cooperation with

the Academic and the Governmental institutions.

The most important at the end of Next Project is discussion, finding solutions and advicing:

How to use NEXT-IS platform to support the goal to favor participation to EU Programs?

Which kind of services must be implemented in the NEXT-IS platform to foster

cooperation in the Macro-Region?

Which kind of actions must be done to strengthen the NEXT partnership?

Another important discussion which for sure create ideas for continuity of the Project in the near

future is, referring to SMEs participation to Horizon 2020 pointed out that business reacted with

enthusiasm to the first calls. There is still room for improvement and relationships built in the

NEXT project can be useful.


152

6.4 ANALYSES OF PROJECT STRATEGY

Regarding the main Project Objectives general and specific ones we came at the conclusion at

the end of the end that this Project was consistent with the objective of Measure 1.1 Research

and Innovation to "encourage innovation and technology transfer through the creation of

networks between the business, institutional and academic community", and the project aimed

and created a collaborative platform among Research centers, enterprises and researchers; this

platform will work even in the future after the closure of the project as the "aggregation element"

to stimulate and support an innovation path that will enable to increase the competitiveness of

the area.

The NEXT project achieved as well the General Objectives, through the collaborative platform,

and aimed:

A. Promoted, expanded and consolidated, in qualitative and quantitative terms, the cooperation

among Research institutes, enterprises and researchers.

B. Tested the mechanisms to support the research and technology transfer system in the area.

C. Represented a qualified interlocutor with institutional stakeholders in view of an enlarged R&I

governance

D. Embodied a competitive partner in research and technology transfer at the area level and

internationally

The specific objectives which were successfully achieved:

• Defined the map of activities and actors of scientific research in each territory involved;

• Implemented an interactive online platform to facilitate and multiply the exchanges among the

actors of innovation;

• Provided a range of services to support the relationships among the actors involved;

http://blog.adriatic-next.eu/next-is-future-perspective-for-the-on-line-platform-by-antonio-santangelo/


153

• Promoted investment opportunities in favor of research and technology transfer;

• Provided guidelines for the development of coordinated policies to support innovation;

• Gave visibility to excellence in the field of research and innovation;

• Capitalized the experience and the results gained to give continuity to the collaborative

platform.

Coherence of the project with the Programme's strategy:

The aims and objectives of the NEXT project were consistent and in close connection with Priority

1 of the Programme: “Economic, social and institutional cooperation” that aimed at

strengthening research and innovation to facilitate the development of the Adriatic area through

economic, social and institutional cooperation.

Furthermore, the NEXT project aimed at the practical implementation of policy objectives of

Measure 1.1 “Research and innovation”: improving research capacity by increasing competence

levels, encouraging transfer of innovation through the creation of networks among the

entrepreneurial, institutional, academic, training and research sectors, and principally by

promoting joint activities.

Behind the innovation development there were not only the investments in research and

development of individual enterprises. The innovation policy aimed to produce new forms of

collaboration between small and medium-sized enterprises especially, in the technology field

rather than in the productive and commercial ones. The Next project intended and promoted the

development of an activity of territorial knowledge management, aimed to make more explicit

and formal the organization of the relations through which enterprises, universities, research

centers, and exchange information’s in the traditional productive systems. The aim of the project

falls exactly within Measure 1.1. i.e. the organization of an innovation system of the "involved

regions" by creating a "place of integration and cooperation" (the NEXT platform) between

different public and private actors.


154

The dimension of the 'cross border' cooperation amplified and facilitated the development of

innovation policies based on processes of knowledge capitalization and accumulation:

• innovation processes and policies at the local/regional level normally produced "spillover"

effects towards neighboring territories. On the other hand, joining a transnational technological

cooperation platform produced immediate multiplier effects of the outcomes of local / regional

innovation policies;

• the physical and geographical dimension of the Adriatic regions often prevented or limited

major economic investments in the field of technology transfer, which instead required a critical

mass of projects, initiatives, enterprises and capitals. From this point of view, cross-border

cooperation, through the access to international networks, created the appropriate economic

conditions;

• the international and global nature of many innovative entrepreneurial initiatives made cross-

border network a more interesting and attractive subject compared to individual regional

administrative units.

Coherence of the project with the relevant EU policies and horizontal issues

The project proved to be consistent with the contents of the main strategic and operational

Documents of the European Commission in the field of innovation and competitiveness of

European Regions.

In particular:

with the "Recommendations of the European Council on the recent Commission proposals on

the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 (29/06/2011)", which:

- recognized the importance that research and innovation play in accelerating the transition

towards a sustainable economy;

- promoted the establishment of stronger links between basic research and industrial innovation,

as well as between innovation and the productive process, recalling that one of the main


155

difficulties in the EU research and innovation programmes lies in the fact that their results are

not effectively marketed.

with the "Lisbon Strategy and the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative - Innovation Union SEC (2010)

1161" that:

- contributed to the achievement of the expenditure objective in R&D sector corresponding to

3% of the gross domestic product (GDP), and to the implementation of the Flagship Initiative

“Innovation Union”, through a strategic approach that integrates both the instruments and the

actors involved in research and innovation;

- aimd to increase the transfer of knowledge between research institutes and enterprises in an

open innovation framework, enhancing and stimulating in particular the "non-commercial"

activities such as research collaborations, mobility of researchers, creation of spin-off ,

publications, etc.;

- promoted the creation of European partnerships for innovation in order to accelerate the

research activities as well as the development and commercialization of innovations with the aim

to address issues relevant for the society, to share experiences and resources and to boost the

competitiveness of European industry, according to the principle of “aging in good health”.

with the recent Communication on "An Integrated Industrial Policy for the globalisation era.

Putting competitiveness and sustainability at Centre Stage" {SEC (2010) 1272}, which states that:

- Clustered and networked improved industrial competitiveness and innovation, bringing

together resources and skills and improving cooperation between public authorities and

universities. The EU Regional Policy and the framework programme in the field of research assists

regions to adopt "smart specialization strategies" to increase their competitiveness by

developing innovation niches.

The project is also consistent with the European and national policies on equal opportunities and

non-discrimination. Equal opportunities have been taken into consideration and enhanced in all


156

the phases of the NEXT Project implementation. Providers have been chosen for all contracts

according to the principles of cost efficiency and transparency.

Coherence of the project with public national and subnational strategies

The NEXT Project aimed to be consistent with the main policy orientations in the field of

innovation and research for the beneficiary countries. Regarding the Italian situation, the project

shows coherence with the objectives and instruments defined by the National E-Government

Strategy and with a specific project "Support for research and innovation policies of the Regions"

financed within the National Operating Plan 2007-2013 funded by Structural funds. Regarding

the Marche Region, the project is coherent with the Single Programming Document 2008

(matching demand and supply of innovation, etc.), with the Regional Strategic Plan’s objective

(to improve competitiveness and strengthen capacities in research and development) and with

ERDF ROP 2007-2013, as for the priority axis innovation and economy of knowledge. Moreover,

it is closely relevant to the most recent Regional Programme Strategy “MARCHE 2020” launched

in February 2011 and focused on the strategic vision of Marche up to 2020 and to the recent

Marche Region Employment and Productive Activity Plan for 2011-2013. The project is also

consistent with the objectives of innovation and revitalization of research in the beneficiary

countries of the Balkans. In these countries the impact of public support for innovation is positive,

but still limited. The implementation of policy measures is effective in identifying and supporting

the most promising projects, research units and knowledge-based enterprises, as well as in

spreading good practices related to a knowledge-based economy. The main policy documents

with which the project expressed coherence of objectives and goals are: Croatia- the Strategic

Framework for Development 2006-2013, Central State Office for Strategic Development for

Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina- Subprogram - "Support to science programmes and projects of

significance to the FBiH", developed and implemented by the Ministry for education and science

of FBiH, Basic, Sub program "Applied and development research in RS", developed by the Ministry

for Science and Technology of RS- Science Department, "Excellence in Innovation", funded by

USAID and Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Norway-Montenegro-Strategy for scientific research

activities 2008-2016 adopted by the Government, - Serbia - Innovation Law (March 2010) by the

Serbian Government- Albania -Strategic Programme for innovation and technology development


157

of SME 2011-2016, the National Strategy for development and integration (NSDI) 2007-2013, the

Business and Investment Development Strategy (BIDS) 2007-2013.

Added value of the cross-border cooperation in this project:

Beyond the immediate effects that cooperation can lead to- which are numerous – a more

qualitative effect concerns the change of mentality: the regions and the actors involved

(economic, institutional and social) exit the isolation caused by the borders and natural

boundaries and start to cooperate in a less hostile environment. This also results in the

achievement of a critical mass that allows, on its turn, to gain enough weight on the international

market and to acquire a greater standing in the relation with central, national or European

authorities. With specific reference to innovation and technology transfer, which are the core of

NEXT, it should be recalled that the majority of the partners and targets of the project (in

particular Research centers and SMEs) is already part of one or more networks, has its own

"niche" activities and has developed skills specialized to various extents.

The problem is that most of the times this niche is limited to the local level, investments in

intangible assets (knowledge and relationships) are still limited and, finally, the modalities of

knowledge organization do not allow to take advantage of “reuse” to a great extent nor to extend

the circuit of potential users and customers.

The challenge – which is also NEXT’s main one – has been achieved to move from “short” to

extended networks: the single network component can remain small, but its strategy shall be

more and more oriented to building a global niche within larger networks.

In this way, its specialized expertise is enhanced and enlarged, reaching customers that short

networks do not allow to reach; the sharing of networks, the collaboration and exchange of

knowledge are widened.

The added value identified concerns both sides of the Adriatic, each territory will have specific

benefits in relation to its features.


158

Regarding cross-border cooperation and the characteristics of the area: • For these Countries to exit the cultural and financial isolation is a priority. As to create precise

operational models, to identify scientific and technological partners and to build up a framework for the exchange of R&I information and services, to facilitate the access to existing resources and skills at the international level, possibly by means of EU funds provided for such synergistic activities as well;

To promote the excellence in the area and increase the institutional capacity in the sector of

research and technology transfer, it’s a clear need, aiming at the implementation of local development models more oriented to the "Territorial knowledge management."

Methodology approach

Rationale for the composition of the partnership: with their closeness to the territory and their

location at the juncture between global and local, the project beneficiaries represent adequate

subjects to meet the demand for R&I, to manage the connections between the actors and to

convey requests and proposals in a systemic framework, facilitating the connection with the

regional/national and EU level. The involvement of the key areas of innovation is also ensured:

research, education and public administration, industry.

Innovation: the NEXT project is innovative both for the issues and challenges that it responds to,

both for the action modalities proposed. Architecture of the NEXT project combines the virtual

and physical dimension of services, based on the assumption that the relations on the

collaborative platform cannot have only an intangible dimension but, alongside online services,

they require a physical/material dimension which gives concreteness and solidity to the groups

that will be formed. A system of relations among different actors is therefore proposed, in which

value creation is not the exclusive result of an internal transformation of inputs into outputs - as

in the traditional innovation model- nor of a technology transfer limited to a single territory (in a

Country or a Region) or to a sector, but it is rather the smart and effective combination of internal

and external resources, on a supranational scale.


159

Target groups/stakeholders: target groups: University departments, university technology

transfer offices, private and public Research centers, Public agencies and private research and

technology transfer centers (from now on RTTCs), researchers, enterprises. Stakeholders: Public

Authorities and financial institutions.

Expected results and outputs

In line with the description provided in the project background and with the general and specific

objectives, the following main results and outputs of the NEXT project have been finalized

successfully.

Results:

- development of a collaborative platform characterized by virtual and material services that

allows to integrate and convert the knowledge of Research institutes, enterprises and

researchers in the Adriatic area, into organized and structured knowledge, encouraging the

innovation transfer between producers and users.

- improvement of the positioning of local research centers on the international market, both in

terms of visibility and access to knowledge and skills for the presentation and interaction with

the financial community and the stakeholders.

- acceleration of the processes of exchange and accumulation of skills and knowledge and

qualification of the collaborative platform as a service and reference structure for the enlarged

R&I governance in the Adriatic area.

- development of the competitive capacity of the actors of innovation in the Adriatic area through

the participation in the platform as the central and acknowledged core of a global net of

knowledge production.

- capacity building and enhancement of the cooperation culture of partners and dissemination of

the acquis communautaire in the Countries of the Adriatic area.

Outputs:


160

NEXT open book: Repository of RTTCs;

NEXT Trends: reports on local contexts;

NEXT IS: online platform to support the relationships between the actors of innovation;

NEXT box: basic services and advanced services to support research and technology transfer;

NEXT investment booster: investment opportunities;

NEXT suite: business plan for the sustainability of the collaborative platform;

NEXT Evaluation: Analysis of the relations and results produced by the collaborative platform and

indications for policy makers;

Communication plan and tools for the promotion and dissemination of results.


161

7. ANNEXES. RESPONSE TO EVALUATION QUESTIONS

ANNEX 1 – EVALUATION TEAM WORK PLAN

Table 1: Work Plan

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug

First phase Methodological note

Trip to Shkodra X

Trip to Serbia X

Finalize the self-

evaluation

Report sample.

X

Write the

Methodological

Note & submit

to the Client.

15/12/14

Second phase Documentary phase

Submit the self-

evaluation

Report sample

X


162

to 11 Partners to

fill out.

Follow up with

11 Partners to

get back the

filled out self-

evaluation

Report on time.

X X X

X

Finalize the

questionnaire

X

Submit the

questionnaire to

the targeted

stakeholders to

fill out online.

X X

X

X

Follow up with

stakeholders to

get back the fill

out

questionnaire on

time.

X X X

Process the data

information

from the filled

out

questionnaire

and draft the

survey Report.

X


163

Trip to Shkodra

Timing TBD

X X X X

Trip to Croatia

Timing TBD

Not

realize

d

Trip to Bosnia

Herzegovina.

Timing TBD

Not

realize

d

Trip to Italy

Timing TBD

X X

Collecting

information

regarding

project activities

from official web

sites.

X X X

X

X

X

X

Write the first

draft Evaluation

Report & submit

to the Client

03/30/

15

Third phase Writing and delivery of the

final Report

Receive

feedback from

the Client &

review the 1st


164

Report to reflect

the required

suggestions.

X

X

X

X

Work to Draft

the final

evaluation

report & submit

to the Client

X X

X

X

18/0

8/15

Receive

feedback from

the Client &

review the draft

final Report to

reflect the

required

suggestions.

Submit the final

evaluation

report & submit

to the Client


165

ANNEX 2. MATRIX 1: EUROPEAN UNION

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE EVALUATION OF EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE

Criteria Definition

Rel

eva

nce

The extent to which the aid activity is suited to the priorities and policies of the target group, recipient and donor. In evaluating the relevance of a programme or a project, it is useful to consider the following questions:

To what extent are the objectives of the programme still valid?

Are the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the overall goal and the attainment of its objectives?

Are the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the intended impacts and effects?

Effe

ctiv

en

ess A measure of the extent to which an aid activity attains its objectives. In evaluating the effectiveness of a

programme or a project, it is useful to consider the following questions:

To what extent were the objectives achieved / are likely to be achieved?

What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?

Sust

ain

abili

ty Sustainability is concerned with measuring whether the benefits of an activity are likely to continue after

donor funding has been withdrawn. Projects need to be environmentally as well as financially sustainable.

When evaluating the sustainability of a programme or a project, it is useful to consider the following questions:

To what extent did the benefits of a programme or project continue after donor funding ceased?

What were the major factors which influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of

the programme or project?


166

Imp

act

Re

sult

s The positive and negative changes produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. This involves the main impacts and effects resulting from the activity on the local social, economic, environmental and other development indicators. The examination should be concerned with both intended and unintended results and must also include the positive and negative impact of external factors, such as changes in terms of trade and financial conditions.

When evaluating the impact of a programme or a project, it is useful to consider the following questions:

What has happened as a result of the programme or project?

What real difference has the activity made to the beneficiaries?

How many people have been affected


167

ANNEX 3. MATRIX 2: EUROPEAN UNION

EVALUATION INDICATORS FOR THE EVALUATION OF EXTERNAL EVALUATION

Indicator Definition

Activity indicator Implementation and management processes

Outputs indicator

Goods and services that are delivered under the responsibility of the managers of the

intervention. To put it simply, it can be said that outputs are what is bought with the

public money.

Results indicator

Immediate effects of the intervention for its direct addressees. An effect is immediate if

the operator notices it easily while he is in contact with the addressees. Because they

are easily acknowledged by the operators, result indicators can be monitored

systematically.


168

ANNEX 4. QUESTIONNAIRE: TARGETED STAKEHOLDERS RELEVANT TO THE PROJECT

ACTIVITIES

- What country/organization do you represent? ____________________________________

- What is your profession? ____________________________________

- What is your age?

From 18 to 25

From 25 to 30

From 30 to 35

From 35 to 40

From 40 to 45

From 45 to 50

From 50 to 55

From 55 to 60

Older than 60

- What Sector do you represented?

University

Research Center

Local Government

NGO

Other ...........……… (Please Specified)


169

- What is your opinion about the project “NEXT” implementation?

Very good

Good

Average

Bad

Very bad

- How do you evaluate the implementation of Activities of the project NEXT, in your opinion?

Very good

Good

Average

Bad

Very bad

- What was the level of communication between partners in your country regarding the implementation of project NEXT?

Very good

Good

Average

Bad

Too bad

- How do you evaluate the ethics of collaboration in the Multi-Cultural environment?

Very good

Good


170

Average

Bad

Too bad

Evaluation question 1- How do you evaluate policies developed by the partners of the project (University, Research Center, Local Government, NGO) regarding partnership and cooperation development?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation question 2- How are the strategic choices regarding the approaching methods the partners of the project (University, Research Center, Local Government, NGO) make application regarding the approach and methods for support to cooperation development?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation question 3- To what extent are policy principles and strategic choices regarding cooperation development in partnerships connected with research, innovation and technology transfer by the partners?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation question 4- What level of collaboration is developed with the LP in the relation to the implementation of the activities with target groups?

____________________________________________________________________________


171

____________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation question 5- To what extent is the partner organization better able to realize its development objectives in relation to research and innovation activities?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation question 6 – Who are the beneficiaries? Are they passive recipients or does the process enables them to participate in developing the research and innovation activities?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation question 7- Are there lessons in what we are doing with the activities that should have a broader impact, rather than just what is happening with the activities?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation question 8- Can the activity results be sustained in some way for the long-term, or will the impact of the Partners’ work cease when the project is over?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________


172

Evaluation question 9- Are we getting the expected activities ‘outputs from the least possible amount of inputs?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation question 10 – Do we fully understand what is happening at the beneficiary level in relation to the activity’s outcomes?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation question 11 – To what extent were the outcomes linked to the project’s activity?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation question 12 – Who is currently benefiting from the project activities and in what ways?

________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation question 13 – Do the inputs (in money and time) justify the outputs and, if so/if not, on what basis is this claim justified?

________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________


173

Evaluation question 14 – What would improve the efficiency, effectiveness and outcomes of the ongoing activities?

________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation question 15 – What are the lessons that can be learned from this project in terms of dissemination and replicability?

________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation question 16 – What are the most effective ways in which an activity project can address the issues of technology transfer, or research and innovation, or creating a collaborative platform?

________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation question 17 – To what extent does the local governance at regional level affect positively on the activity work, and on their results ‘sustainability?

________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation question 18 – What learning from this project would have applicability across the full development spectrum of the 6 participating countries?

________________________________________________________________________


174

Annex 5. Guidelines for fulfilling properly and having good results for self-evaluation report

To establish effective self- evaluation of project activities 11 partners should:

Build in the scope and purpose of evaluation of activities.

Identify all relevant stakeholders and seek their views so that the outputs and results of

the activities from all parties can be evaluated.

Undertake formal evaluations of the success of 10 best cases to identify the factors of

success and the way forward.

Ensure that the data to be used in an evaluation are fit for purpose and sufficiently valid,

reliable and relevant.

Quantify the effects of a policy in isolation from other related policies using valid

measures of the counterfactual from controlled comparisons.

Distinguish between factors which are attributable to an outcome - such as ex-prisoners

re-offending because they are unemployed and factors which contribute to an outcome

- such as poor counseling for released prisoners - to analyze the success or failure of a

policy.

Secure that lessons are learned from evaluation and that results are used to inform and

improve the design and implementation of future policies using incentives and

disincentives to bring about change where appropriate.

Seek to share with other departments the lessons they have learned through evaluation.

Ensure that evaluators understand the political, cultural and organizational environment

in which they are working and that "what works" in one context or environment may not

work in the same ways elsewhere.

Ensure that evaluators have the appropriate skills and experience to evaluate effectively

the success or otherwise of a policy.

Ensure that they have agreed and set down with evaluators clearly specified policy

objectives so that criteria to evaluate the success or otherwise of a policy can be

established.


175

Ensure that they have agreed with the evaluators the criteria to be used to evaluate the

success or otherwise of a policy meeting its objectives and that policy-makers and

evaluators distinguish between policy outputs and policy outcomes.


176

Annex 6. Results of the questionnaire – Targeted Stakeholders relevant to the project

activities

The following table shows the responses of targeted stakeholders to questionnaire.

There are sixteen stakeholders that have completed this questionnaire in following different

countries as Albania, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Italia and Serbia.

In the following tables there are shown the results.

Table 1.

Question: What is your age? Answers

From 18 to 25 0

From 25 to 30 3

From 30 to 35 2

From 35 to 40 2

From 40 to 45 3

From 45 to 50 1

From 50 to 55 1

From 55 to 60 3

Older than 60 0


177

Table 2.

Question: What Sector do you represented? Answers

University 3

Research Center 2

Local Government 2

NGO 3

Other 4

Table 3.

Question: What is your opinion about the project “NEXT” implementation?

Answers

Very good 9

Good 6

Average 0

Bad 0

Very bad 0


178

Table 4.

Question: How do you evaluate the implementation of Activities of the project NEXT, in your opinion?

Answers

Very good 6

Good 9

Average 0

Bad 0

Very bad 0

Table 5.

Question: What was the level of communication between partners in your country regarding the implementation of project NEXT?

Answers

Very good 11

Good 4

Average 0

Bad 0


179

Very bad 0

Table 6.

Question: How do you evaluate the ethics of collaboration in the Multi-Cultural environment?

Answers

Very good 14

Good 1

Average 0

Bad 0

Very bad 0

Following table show the professions of the stakeholders and respective countries.

Table 7.

Profession Country

Tourism Expert Albania

Tourism Professor – Shkoder University Albania

Marketing and Tourism Professor – Shkoder University Albania

Agronomist Albania

Agronomist Albania

Biologist Environmental Expert Albania

Cattleman Albania


180

Researcher Bosnia and Herzegovina

Professional collaborator Bosnia and Herzegovina

Head of SME DepartmentRegional Development Agency for Herzegovina

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Molecular Biotechnology Engineer - Research Centre METRIS

Croatia

Engineer Croatia

Civil Servant - Marche Region Italia

Higher advisor for development Serbia

On the other hand the questionnaire have also evaluation questions. In the following table it is

show in general way what does the stakeholders think about them.

Table 8.

Evaluation question 1- How do you evaluate policies developed by the partners of the

project (University, Research Center, Local Government, NGO) regarding partnership and

cooperation development?

The stakeholders think that in overall methodology applied presents step forward in

understanding of importance of these institutes and connecting them in order to improve

potential of respective region, but these activities are in need of constant work,

improvement and follow up after implementation of the project.

Evaluation question 2-How are the strategic choices regarding the approaching methods

the partners of the project (University, Research Center, Local Government, NGO) make

application regarding the approach and methods for support to cooperation

development?

In general cases approach toward University, Research Center, Local Government, and

NGOwere made by external experts, providing to them all necessary information and

presenting possibilities to create network with entities of their interest. In most of cases


181

they do not have information regarding their approach/incentives fostering their

cooperation models

Evaluation question 3- To what extent are policy principles and strategic choices regarding

cooperation development in partnerships connected with research, innovation and

technology transfer by the partners?

Cooperation development connected with research, innovation and technology is core

element of our project and interrelates all activities undergone.

Evaluation question 4- What level of collaboration is developed with the Lead Partner in

the relation to the implementation of the activities with target groups?

Lead Partner is reference point for implementation of target groups related activities and

Lead Partner undertake all key incentives to better address TG, therefore in most of

stakeholders level of collaboration is quite high and based on day to day communication.

Evaluation question 5- To what extent is the partner organization better able to realize its

development objectives in relation to research and innovation activities?

NEXT IS platform is key output of respective projects of stakeholders and powerful tool for helping the community in terms of networking, project/product/services development, partner/patent search as well as info point for keeping up to date.

Evaluation question 6 –Who are the beneficiaries? Are they passive recipients or does the

process enables them to participate in developing the research and innovation activities?

At this moment beneficiaries are only recognized stakeholders as users of the NEXT IS

platform service, but in the future they are planning extensive activities in order to

include them actively and secure satisfaction of their needs - activities such as

(Innovation people, match - making events, workshops)


182

Evaluation question 7- Are there lessons in what we are doing with the activities that

should have a broader impact, rather than just what is happening with the activities?

The main elements such as: raising awareness community, involving them in

implementation of project, creation of networks for future potential cooperation - these

are all broader effects that should overcome just “simple project activities

implementation”.

Evaluation question 8- Can the activity results be sustained in some way for the long-

term, or will the impact of the Partners’ work cease when the project is over?

The stakeholders must reach understanding at the project level to develop future

sustainability model otherwise this project would not make much sense, one of the

potential model is to create interest among private investors/ research organization to

engage in the work of the platform.

Evaluation question 9- Are we getting the expected activities ‘outputs from the least possible amount of inputs?

In most of cases “Yes”.

Evaluation question 10 - Do we fully understand what is happening at the beneficiary

level in relation to the activity’s outcomes?

It is crucial to contact beneficiaries in every stage to fully understand their expectation,

we think that our activities are in line with beneficiaries expectations and that we have

recognized their key needs that must be addressed.

Evaluation question 11 - To what extent were the outcomes linked to the project’s activity?

Outcomes are very linked with project activities, some vague expectations listed in the original application form have been clarified and worked out more in more details during project implementation.


183

Evaluation question 12 - Who is currently benefiting from the project activities and in

what ways?

Currently beneficiaries are mostly contacted in few ways: for the purpose of mapping, they are presented on eh NEXT IS, they participated in match making event and other promotional activities. But all preconditions have been prepared so that activities to their interest can began in full extent in the next few months.

Evaluation question 13 - Do the inputs (in money and time) justify the outputs and, if so/if

not, on what basis is this claim justified?

This is sensitive period of the project and at this point in general, stakeholders, cannot

derive conclusion on this matter, but in the next few months full results will be visible

and then they could been evaluated properly.

Evaluation question 14 - What would improve the efficiency, effectiveness and outcomes

of the ongoing activities?

Better communication of the activities toward beneficiaries: organization of larger number of cross border events, workshops, etc.

Evaluation question 15 - What are the lessons that can be learned from this project in

terms of dissemination?

They must stress that two - way interactive communication toward beneficiaries (match making events, participatory workshops) in which they are fully engaged are far better solution than traditional one-way dissemination tools: Leaflets, brochures etc.

Evaluation question 16 - What are the most effective ways in which an activity project can

address the issues of technology transfer, or research and innovation, or creating a

collaborative platform?


184

Creation conditions for networking and sharing of know – how among beneficiaries in

simple, non-demanding and intuitive way

Evaluation question 17 - To what extent does the local governance at regional level affect

positively on the activity work, and on their results ‘sustainability?

If included properly local and regional authorities can become key integrating element

for their area in terms of legislative and logistic support for their beneficiaries.

Evaluation question 18 - What learning from this project would have applicability across

the full development spectrum of the 6 participating countries?

Creation of models for fostering this sectors as one of the key elements for further

economic development of respective region countries.