Pisa, september 8th

Marina Otero IEPL- Spanish Institute for Development of Labor Productivity

This project (“European Entrepreneurs Campus n. 2012-1-IT1-LEO05-02794 - ) has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein

PLANNING

IMPLEMENTATION

EVALUATION

It is the systematic application of social research procedures for

assessing the conceptualization and design, implementation

and utility of social intervention programs. Rossi, P. y Freeman, H. (1993). Evaluation: a systematic approach. Sage Publications.

Campus Project

evaluation

e

valu

ati

on

eva

lua

tion

evaluation

1.1.1. Activities conducted with the tools

From total activities (97), the great part have been conducted in BMC tool:

From total activities , US conduced 76,3%.

Innovation Camp; 7,2%

BMC; 92,8%

3,1% 9,3%

3,1%

76,3%

2,1% 4,1% 2,1%

CEDIT REGIONETOSCANA

UNIPI US IEPL VSFS AMSP CR

Number of activities conducted with the tools

1.1.1. Activities conducted with the tools

The way we have worked with…

Innovation Camp BMC

50%

20%

30%

Participatory workshop Reading Working in groups

40%

30%

30%

Participatory workshop Reading Working in groups

1.1.2. Shares held broadcast

The number of broadcast actions is rather more about BMC tool

If we analyse data respect differents territorial levels…

30%

70%

Innovation Camp BCM

50,0%

25,0%

33,3%

37,5%

66,7%

37,5%

Innovation Camp BMC

Local Regional National

Actions by partners:

1.1.2. Shares held broadcast

15,0% 15,0% 15,0% 15,0%

10,0% 10,0%

20,0%

CEDIT REGIONETOSCANA

UNIPI US IEPL VSFS AMSP CR

1.1.3. Tools necessary adaptations/changes

3

0 0

3

0 0 0

1 1

2

0 0

2

0 0 0

Total REGIONETOSCANA

UNIPI US IEPL VSFS AMSP CR

Number of tools necessary adaptations/changes

Number of changes IC

Number of changes in BMC

Partners data:

1.1.4. People envolved per activity

Target people:

Students distribution by gender:

4,7%

1,5%

12,2%

71,6%

3,4%

3,1%

3,6%

0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0% 80,0%

CEDIT

REGIONE TOSCANA

UNIPI

US

IEPL

VSFS

AMSP CR

Number of people involved per activity

21,4% 19,6%

48,7%

78,6% 80,4%

51,3%

Total Student Others

Innovation Camp BMC

46,0% 32,7%

49,6%

54,0% 67,3%

50,4%

Total Innovation Camp BMC

Men Woman

With each tool:

1.1.5. Skills worked Leadership;

34,3%

Creativity; 22,9%

Personal autonomy;

17,1%

Business skills; 25,7%

35,7%

21,4% 21,4% 28,6%

35,0%

25,0% 15,0%

25,0%

Leadership Creativity Personal autonomy Business skills

Innovation Camp BMC

1.3.1. Degree of suitability to transfer the know-how of the tools to partners

Excellent (4) Good (3) Enough (2) Poor (1)

Exc

elle

nt

(4)

Go

od

(3)

En

ou

gh

(2

)

Po

or

(1)

Exc

elle

nt

(4)

Go

od

(3)

En

ou

gh

(2

)

Po

or

(1)

Innovation Camp BMC

CEDIT

REGIONE TOSCANA

UNIPI

US

IEPL

AMSP CR

1.3.2.Difficulty in adapting tools to the needs of each country

Veryhigh (1)

High (2) Low (3) Verylow (4)

Veryhigh (1)

High (2) Low (3) Verylow (4)

Innovation Camp BMC

CEDIT

REGIONE TOSCANA

UNIPI

US

IEPL

AMSP CR

• We only have available information in our monitoring system from US

• University of Seville can confirm us that the people envolved in

the Project activities have created a total of 5 companies or businesses, of which 4 were founded by men and one by women.

• Total business created 15 jobs, hired 9 men and 6 women.

• We have to continue to feed over time, tracking the people who participated in the workshops and meetings during the project.

• We have not available information yet in order to complete these indicators.

• But we have the indicators.

• So, we must continue to get useful information for the final impact evaluation to measure the indirect effects of the project.