Project Work Pack Example

Work plan and work packages
Identification
Work package
Work package number 1 Project management and reporting
title
Management
Implementation (the substance of the work planned including production,
testing, etc)
Work package type Quality Assurance (quality plan)
Dissemination
Exploitation of results
Start End Duration

1 24
Month number Month number 24 in number of months
Description of the work package (limit 3000 characters)
The overall aim of this work package is to maintain the project on schedule and on budget. Reykjavik
University (RU) will be the coordinator of the project and responsible for WP1. The main tasks are overall
project management, financial management, steering group/consortium meetings and formal reporting. It
includes an overall management task that will occupy the project coordinator during all the project lifetime
and a financial management task occupying another person during all the project lifetime. Financial
management will be taken care of by a specific person, working closely and reporting directly to the
coordinator in collaboration with the financial department of RU. This person will also advise partners in
reporting expenses etc.
All the project partners and WP leaders will have their own local, project team. The leader and one other
person of the team will attend the steering group meetings.
The project coordinator takes care of the formal reporting to the Agency. Its responsibilities include the
preparation and delivery of progress and final reports, as required by the Agency, as well as any additional
reporting that might be requested by the Agency or as by consortium initiative.
The project coordinator will provide a project manual that includes information about project procedures,
reporting expenses and actions and templates for reporting. This manual will be presented in the first
consortium meeting.
The project coordinator requires monitoring reports from each partner every three months. These reports
should include general description of what has been done, deliverables and budget. Project coordinator also
manages steering group/consortium meetings.
There will be nine steering group/consortium meetings. In addition to the kick-off meeting in the fall of 2014
there will four meetings per each financial year. The kick-off meeting will be a face-to-face meeting. Other
than that there will be three other face-to-face meetings (two in the first financial year, one on the last). The
rest of the meetings are teleconferences.
Project coordinator will take care of filing the project documentation (reports, minutes, plans etc.) and shall
also provide and host a virtual platform for sharing documents and storing documentation.
[WP1. Task 1] Project management

1. Ensuring the project goals and objectives are completed in time and on budget;
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 1 of 39
2. Delivering a project manual, that has all the necessary information about the project procedures;
3. Arranging steering group/consortium meetings.
Inputs: Progress reports from WP leaders.

Outputs: Progress and final reports to the Agency and to the consortium, consortium meetings, project
manual.
[WP1. Task 2] Financial management

1. Monitoring budget by collecting budget reports from the partners;
2. Providing budget reports for the Agency and the consortium;
3. Advising partners in financial reporting matters.
Inputs: Budget reports from WP leaders every 3 months.

Outputs: Budget reports for the Agency and the consortium.
[WP1. Task 3] Documentation

1. Collecting and storing the project documents;
2. Providing a virtual platform for sharing and storing the documents.
Inputs: Progress reports, minutes, evaluation reports, dissemination and exploitation plans etc. from WP
leaders.
Outputs: Comprehensive files about the project progression and results, virtual platform for sharing the files.
Personnel in charge of the work package implementation:
Ásrún Matthíasdóttir, Assistant professor: is the expert of pedagogy and quality of education with
background in computer science and is working on the implementation of CDIO in School of Science and
Engineering at Reykjavik University. She has a good ability to organise and lead group work, long experience
of working in interdisciplinary and international environment in different school and at the university level in
Iceland. She has a long experience of teaching and research work as an upper secondary school teacher for
17 years and assistant professor at RU since 2001. Her research interests have been in new teaching
methods, quality of education and well-being of teachers and students.
She has a long experience of international work as a partner for RU in a number of European and Nordic
projects as well as in evaluating educational work, consulting schools and teachers in ITC use. She has got a
number of project grants in Iceland, e.g. from the Student Innovation Fund in Iceland, pilot project grant
and three project grants from the Icelandic Centre for Research (Rannís), and grants for curriculum
development in computer science and mathematics and teaching in upper secondary schools from the
Minister of Education.
Ingunn Sæmundsdóttir is an Associate Professor and Director of Undergraduate and Graduate Studies in
the School of Science and Engineering at RU. She has a long experience of teaching and directing
departments at RU and taken part in number of projects at university levels. She has taken seats in
organising committees and committees but at RU and on the behalves of RU e.g. the Technical University of
Iceland´s committee for evaluation of candidates teaching staff positions. In 2010 she was appointed as a
honorary member of the Association of Chartered Engineers in Iceland. Her teaching subject have been soil
mechanics and geotechnical design, rock mechanics, statics and mechanics, hydraulics in the undergraduate
program in Civil Engineering..
Páll Jensson, Professor of Engineering Management at the Reykjavik University since 2011, previously at
University of Iceland 1977-2011. He holds a PhD degree in Industrial Engineering from the Technical
University of Denmark 1975. He was employed by IBM 1975-1977. Professor Jensson has long experience
of operational research and mathematical modelling of various economical and technical cases. He has been
active in teaching and research in Industrial Engineering since 1977.
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 2 of 39
Identification
Work package Quality plan: Ensuring the quality of the cooperation and
Work package number 2
title outcomes
Management
testing, etc) Quality Assurance (quality plan)
Work package type
Dissemination
Start 1 End 24 Duration

24
Month number Month number in number of months
The main aim of the quality assurance of cooperation and outcomes work-package (WP2) is to ensure and
improve the quality mechanisms of cooperation and outcomes between the partners of the
QAEMarketplace4HEI project. It will define how the project´s activities and results will be monitored and
evaluated. This WP will prepare the quality assurance plan of the project, yearly and final reports, and others
forms according to needs in order to monitor the process and reached effects. The WP2 is coordinated by
Metropolia but involves leaders of each other WP.
A quality assurance plan of the QAEMarketplace4HEI project, annual and final reports, and other forms
according to needs in order to monitor the process and achieved outcomes are produced.
A general procedure of tasks of WP2 are:

1) Collect expected outcomes and deliverables from the other WPs
2) Check the timetable and resources for each milestone leading to the outcomes
3) Create the Indicators for different milestones,
4) Arrange workshops during each project meeting to decide the actions needed according to the outcomes of
the indicators
5) Collect the information for the final quality report
6) Produce a final quality report as a deliverable containing the “lessons learned”, which will be delivered for
wide audience.
First a guideline for homogenous and clear documentation will be prepared for the whole project.. All the
partners will be obligated to periodic fulfilling the evaluation questionnaire. It will help us to verify the internal
and external quality assurance of cooperation and outcomes.
The WP2 executes according to the needs of the project a questionnaire for gathering quantitative and
qualitative data and feedbacks from and for cross-sparrings, run or tested (how long, how complex, how ...
etc.). On the run, the project implements the questionnaire for gathering and valuating indicators of cross-
sparring stakeholders/partners. This gives the basis to present a synthesis of results and an analysis based
both on quantitative indicators and feedbacks of the strengths and weaknesses of the process and associated
tool kit. From this analysis, improvements to the process or tools will be identified.
An Expert Team for Quality Assurance will be coordinated byMetropolia)and it will be supported by other
partners. The team will meet in connection to all the project meetings during the whole project (before self-
evaluation phase, cross-sparring phase and after cross-sparring phase). All partners will meet at the end of
the project and discuss the reached goals and finalise the lessons learned deliverable
The basis for the utilized mechanisms of QA will be recognized formal systems and methodologies, eg: EUR-
ACE and EFQM
All other WP’s have a strong links to WP2 and therefore they have some elements of their deliverables to
refine thanks to an external viewpoint in a iterative way.
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 3 of 39
The WP5, in the first s methods, processes, guidelines and kits to be implemented and in the second cycle
all these outcomes. In the middle of the project an analysis concerning strengths and weaknesses is to be
carried out after the first implementation. WP2 is expected to give an echo to other WP’s needs.
The realization of above-mentioned activities will result in the following aspects:

• The quality assurance of cooperation and outcomes between partners of the QAEMarketplace4HEI
project will be more consequent due to conformation to adjusting recommendation sand
standards;
• Every partner of the QAEMarketplace4HEI project will have the same references in the area of the
quality assurance of cooperation and outcomes;
• The consolidation of procedures concerning the quality assurance of cooperation will be achieved;
• The improvement of transfer of ideas and experiences between partners of the
QAEMarketplace4HEI project will be achieved;
• The level of trust between partners of the QAEMarketplace4HEI project will increase.
In order to support the quality assurance of cooperation and outcomes task, we will use the following
communication instruments:
• The e-mail correspondence,
• The phone/skype communication,
• The teleconferences,
• The face-to-face meetings,
• Internet tools,
• Others available tools.
[WP2. Task 1] Ensuring and improving the quality of the QAEMarketplace4HEI project
1. Preparing a quality plan for the project
2. Preparing an evaluation questionnaire
3. Monitoring the realisation of the quality plan
4. Producing yearly reports
Inputs: National and international QA requirements and guidelines, partner reports.

Outputs: The Quality Handbook, annual reports
[WP2. Task 2] Ensuring the quality of the documentation

1. Providing documentation guidelines
2. Monitoring documentation quality
Inputs: Project documents, General documentation guidelines

Outputs: Project documentation guidelines, Reports on documentation quality
[WP2. Task 3] Establishing Quality Expert team

1. Inviting members to the team
2. Planning and scheduling the Quality Expert team work
3. Following the work plan and reporting project QA issues
Inputs: Project documentation, reports and other relevant materials

Outputs: Detailed Quality Expert team work plan, QA reports/memos on project performance
Markku Karhu is the dean of the degree programmes in Media and ICT at METROPOLIA. He has actively
contributed in many European-wide engineering education development projects and networks and the
dissemination of their results. Mr. Karhu has run many courses in the area of information technology and
adapted the work based learning and prior learning evaluation in practice. Under his management new
approaches to promote active learning and teaching among the staff are being introduced. Two of these to be
mentioned are the concept of CDIO (Conceive – Design – Implement – Operate) which is a new pedagogical
approach in engineering education, created in Sweden and now spreading as it is adopted in a number of
engineering schools worldwide, promoting integrated studies, project based learning and soft skills. The other
approach promotes innovation plaza concept in R&D based learning environments.
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 4 of 39
Katriina Schrey-Niemenmaa has 20 years research experience in the field of quality systems in universities
and has written many papers and her post-graduate licentiate thesis in this field. She already participated in
the H3E project as a representative of industry in the late 1990s and 2000s and has been active ever since.
Additionally she has been active on other platforms of EE. Currently she is a member of the METROPOLIA
faculty as a senior lecturer, piloting research issues in her own teaching. Her national and international
networks cover the membership of IACEE Council. Additionally she is the Chair of the Board of Education at
the Academic Engineers and Architects in Finland – TEK. She actively participates in promoting flexible
learning methods, scientific knowledge and skills and quality approach among national education system and
also in engineering education as a whole.
Deliverables – outputs / products / results

Please add tables as necessary.
Deliverable number D2.1
Title The Quality Handbook
Type of outputs /
Handbook (e-book)
products / results
Public
Restricted to other programme
participants (including Commission
Dissemination services and project reviewers)
Delivery date Month 3
level Confidential, only for members of
the consortium (including EACEA
and Commission services and
project reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Nature Demonstrator / Prototype
Event
Other
Language
versions English
Target languages English
Description (limit 1000 characters)
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 5 of 39
The Quality Handbook is a tool used to describe the consortium strategic approach to quality
management of the QAEMarketplace4HEI project.
The book will include:
 the description of the particular roles and responsibilities of every partner and their relation to
quality management
 the quality work plan,
 defined quality standards for the documentation
 the initial schedule of quality expert group meetings,
 the evaluation questionnaire,
 the individual reporting sheet,
 other necessary documents.
The Quality Handbook will be published as an e-book.
Title The Quality Expert team meetings
Type of outputs /
Meetings
products / results
Public
Months 3,12,22 Dissemination services and project reviewers)
Delivery date
project reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Event
Other
Language
versions English
The Quality Expert team has check points before self-evaluation phase, before cross-sparring phase and
after cross-sparring phase. The meetings will take place in pursuance of the Consortium meetings. The
meetings result in detailed Quality Expert team work plan and QA reports/memos on project performance
from every meeting with the purpose of conducting immediate corrections to the matters recognised.
Title The annual reports of the quality assurance of the cooperation and outcomes
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 6 of 39
Type of outputs /
Report
products / results
Public
Months 5, 12, 24 Dissemination services and project reviewers)
Delivery date
project reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Event
Other
Language
versions English
The output of the quality assurance of cooperation and outcomes task will be three reports, one per year.
The reports are based on the analysis of the enquiry sent to the partners. We will also prepare QA
reports/memos on project performance after every meeting of the Expert Team for Quality Assurance.
These actions allow us to control the course of the project and eventually support the tasks and processes
of the project. The results from this part of work-package will be published in the project website and on
stakeholder mailing lists.
Title The final report of the quality assurance of the cooperation and outcomes
Type of outputs /
Report
products / results
Public
Month 24 Dissemination services and project reviewers)
Delivery date
project reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Event
Other
Language
versions English
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 7 of 39
The main output of the quality assurance of cooperation and outcomes task will be the final report. We
will determine whether the chosen model of cooperation was adequate or needs to be developed. The
report also reflects and analyses the success of the quality plan.
The results from our WP2 will be introduced to the summary report from QAEMarketplace4HEI project
and also published as a part of the report for the stakeholders (WP7, D7.8).
Title The evaluation questionnaires
Type of outputs /
Questionnaires
products / results
Public
project reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Event
Other
Language
versions English
A periodically filled evaluation web-questionnaire for project and pilot partners to verify the internal and
external quality assurance of cooperation and outcomes.

The “lessons learned” report of the quality assurance of the cooperation and
Title
outcomes
Type of outputs /
Report
products / results
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 8 of 39
x Public
Month 24 Dissemination services and project reviewers)
Delivery date
level Confidential, only for members of the
consortium (including EACEA and
Commission services and project
reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Event
Other
Language
versions English
The main public deliverable of the quality assurance of cooperation and outcomes task will be the final
report of lessons learned. The report will share the working practises that could be adapted to further
projects - and also findings about practises that did not work in an ideal way. Some thoughts about where
could be saved time and reach more effectiveness will be introduced.
“Lessons learned” is meant to be a deliverable sharing the expertise how to get best possible outcome
from the benchmarking and quality knowledge from the marketplace. That knowledge is meant to help
the university units in their own continuous development work with less investment and to help to find
out which processes are really necessary to be defined and useful for decision making. This is to avoid
unnecessary collection of data but focusing to the critical factors.
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 9 of 39
Identification
Work package
Work package number 3 Institutional Self Evaluation
title
Management
testing, etc)
Dissemination
Start End Duration

1 22
WP3 focuses on the self-evaluation process applied to programmes within an institution. Aston University
coordinates the WP3.
There are different ways in which the self-evaluation process can be conducted. Also there may be particular
institutional needs / interests that it is necessary to incorporate into the self-evaluation process. With these
in mind, it is important that individual institutions have the freedom to conduct their self-
evaluation in the manner they deem most appropriate.
From the point of view of the QAEMarketplace4HEI project, institutions need to be aware of and work within
a framework that will be defined. This framework will ensure that the outputs of the self-evaluation that are
required to develop a functioning marketplace (WP4) are available following the self-evaluation. The
framework should be the core of the self-evaluation process, with institutions able to develop their own
process beyond the core or be able to translate their existing processes to map onto the framework.
To meet this requirement a series of steps will need to be taken and these will form the tasks for WP3.
Task 1 – Defining the framework for the Market Place

A preliminary definition of the required information needed to feed into the marketplace such that the
marketplace can function successfully will be developed.
Task 2 –Defining the Self Evaluation Framework ‘Prototype’

This task will define a ‘prototype’ self-evaluation framework based on the outputs of Task 1. This framework
will become a working model and will be refined as subsequent tasks are undertaken.
Task 3 – Self Evaluation Process Review

Explore, document and critique the self-evaluation processes used by institutions. This will initially focus on
the project partners but then be extended to other identified institutions where valuable practice lessons can
be learned. This will lead to refinements of the framework.
Task 4 – Statutory Document Review

The Programme Evaluation Process is often influenced by relevant Quality Standards and Policy Documents.
These documents, whether national or global will need to be considered within the project to ensure
compliance but also to act as an additional source of input for refining the framework.
Task 5 – Framework Review

This task will review the framework against the requirements for WP4 after the refinements initiated by tasks
2-4. Final changes will then be made to produce the Final Self Evaluation Framework for use in the
QAEMarketplace4HEI project.
Task 6 – Implementation Tools and Guidance

With a working model, there will be a need to develop guidelines and sample tools to support the framework
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 10 of 39
implementation as deemed necessary. This will include guidance on how to translate existing self-evaluation
data into a form that satisfies the framework as well as providing support for new participants in the
process.
Task 7 – Ongoing Review

The self-evaluation framework, process and supporting materials will be reviewed on an ongoing basis as
feedback is received from the cross-sparring process.
Robin Clark, as Head of Learning and Teaching Development, is the Engineering Education lead for the
whole School of Engineering and Applied Science with responsibility for the promotion of innovative teaching
practice and engineering education research and scholarship. As a National Teaching Fellow, Robin has been
recognised as one of the top HE learning and teaching practitioners in the UK and in 2012 took over as the
Chair of the SEFI Engineering Education Research Working Group.

Deliverable number D3.1.
Title Institutional Self Evaluation
Type of outputs / A framework and supporting tools and guidance – these will be available in
products / results both paper and electronic form
Public
Delivery date M 13, M22
project reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Event
Other
Language
versions English
The outputs from WP3 will comprise a defined framework and the materials to support its
implementation.
- A defined framework in graphical form with supporting explanatory text
- A ‘suggested’ self evaluation process that maps against the framework and delivers the outputs required
for the marketplace (WP4)
- Guidance notes and tools to support the implementation of a self evaluation process that maps against
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 11 of 39
the defined framework. A particular focus here will be a ‘translation’ tool to aid institutions with an already
defined and embedded process to assess how well they map against the framework and this their
compatability with the marketplace requirements
- A critical review of the self-evaluation process as applied in sample European institutions.
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 12 of 39
Identification
Work package
Work package number 4 The cross-sparring Market Place
title
Management
testing, etc)
Dissemination
Start End Duration

1 21 21
The underlying assumption of this project is, that cross-sparring of two degree programmes/institutions will
enhance the quality of both programmes/institutions. This naturally leads to the question - who should
cross-sparr and how can these institutions/degree programmes actually find each other? This is where the
Market Place comes in - a virtual place where confidential information can be entered and partners for the
cross-sparring can be found. In the project the Market Place will be implemented and operated by partner
P3 Aarhus university (AU). In the first phase of the project, the other partners will give feedback and
suggest improvements. In the second phase, we will strive for degree programmes/institutions outside the
project group to give feedback for improving the Market Place.
Giving inspiration to other in their quality enhancement process is very important. The Market Place will be
such a place where good advice on improving the quality will be made available to other institutions/degree
programmes. At the Market Place, best practice on how institutions have done self-evaluations; quality
enhancements etc. will be available.
A project terminates after a period. The last part of this WP will be devoted to ensuring a continuation of the
market place. We aim at transferring the operation of the market-place to an already existing European
organization in the QA area (eg. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA))
together with WP7 Dissemination.
The main target of the WP4 is to produce a prototype of the actual cross-sparring marketplace. The goal of
the cross-sparring marketplace is:
1. Make it possible for institutions and/or degree-programmes show an interest in cross-sparring
2. Highlight and make available best practice of how institutions and degree-programmes enhance
their quality in different quality aspects
3. Match institution and/or degree-programmes so that a fruitful cross-sparring can take place
The objectives of the WP4 are
1. Define and test what information is needed at the market-place to make a successful cross-sparring
(in collaboration with WP3)
2. Define, develop and test what additional information is needed at the cross-sparring marketplace
(e.g. materials, introduction videos …)
3. Define and implement a cross-sparring algorithm
4. Create a ‘prototype’ web-market place
5. Explore, document and critique the market place. Initially focusing on the partners and then
extending to other identified institutions where valuable practice lessons can be learned.
6. Ensure a sustainability for the market-place
The WP4 is divided to tasks as follows:
[WP4 Task 1]: Description of the Market Place

QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 13 of 39
1. Defining the minimal elements that need to be present to do the cross-sparring (in cooperation with
WP5). The cross-sparring must function on this minimal information but benefit from additional
information. The information comes from demographic information (type of study program, country
etc) and generic assessment method elements
2. Define what minimal information that need to be publically available to do a cross-sparring (there is
a conflict between institutions potentially want to have their self-evaluation results kept private and
the idea that institutions learn from other institutions)
3. Evaluate if this is the core information needed.
4. Perform an analysis of what supporting information is needed at the market place by 1) a novice user,
2) a returning user, 3) a person who wants to know what this cross-sparring is about
5. Create the material for the web-based platform
Inputs: -
Outputs: materials
[WP4 Task 2]: Establishing the algorithm of the Market Place

1. Evaluate information from partners who have done a cross sparring on what elements contributed to
a successful cross-sparring.
2. Create an algorithm that performs the cross sparring. The algorithm must be flexible so that it can is
adapt to new information from the self-evaluation.
Inputs: -
Outputs: algorithm
[WP4 Task 3]: Establishing a prototype of the Market Place

1. Define quality parameters for the market-place.
2. Design and program a prototype of the market place. The market place will be available via
www.cross-sparring.eu
3. Test the market-place with respect to the defined quality parameters
Inputs: Specification for the marketplace data (task 1), materials (task 2)
Outputs: a web-based prototype
[WP4 Task 4]: Evaluating and refining the Market Place (partners)
1. Evaluate the market-place functionality with project partners (in collaboration with WP 3,5 and 6)
2. Redesign and reprogram the market place.
3. Evaluate best practices and create additional material
Inputs: The prototype market place (task 3)

Outputs: An enhanced marked place
[WP4 Task 5]: Evaluating and refining Market Place (others)

1. Evaluate the market-place functionality with others (in collaboration with WP 3,5 and 6)
2. Redesign and reprogram the market place.
3. Evaluate best practices and create additional material
Inputs: The market place (task 6)

Outputs: An enhanced marked place
[WP4 Task 6]: Providing a User Guide for the Market Place
1. Providing a user guides for different end users.
Inputs: Definition of end users, user feedback from pilots.

Outputs: User guides
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 14 of 39
Jens Bennedsen, Ph. D. is a professor in engineering didactics leading one of the pedagogical centers at
Aarhus University. His research area includes educational methods, technology and curriculum development
methodology, and he has published more than 40 articles at leading education conferences and journals. He
is among other things the co-leader of the European CDIO region and a member of the CDIO council.

Title The Market Place
Type of outputs /
Web-site
products / results
Public
Delivery date M 12, 16, 19
project reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Event
Other
Language
versions English
A working prototype where it is possible for the interested HEIs/DPs

 Post an interest in finding a pair to do the actual bilateral review. The interest includes a
completed self-evaluation report. The market-place must be flexible enough to serve many
different self-evaluation reports and criteria for cross-sparring
 Translate the actual self-evaluation report done in an assessment model to the core elements of
the generic assessment model in an automated way so that the cross-sparring can be done
 Find best-practice on how to perform self-evaluation and improve the quality on one or more
parameters.
The web-site will be public available, give information (guides etc.) to interested parties and give
institutions the possibility to find a pair.
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 15 of 39
Identification
Work package
Work package number 5 Cross-Sparring: C-S Process Definition, guidelines and kits
title
Management
testing, etc)
Dissemination
Start End Duration

8 15
An assessment process is a systematic way of determining how successful a program is in doing what it sets
out to do. Even if national accreditation bodies propose regulation systems to HEIs for supporting changes,
once the external evaluation report is delivered, a few months after the audit, there is sometimes little
follow-up on the recommendations made in the short or middle terms (eg accreditation every 4 to 6 years).
To support continuous improvement and evidence, the objectives of WorkPackage 5 (“WP5”) will be the
definition, formalization, and validation of flexible cross-sparring processes specific to the domain of higher
education, for purposes of a more reactive quality enhancement.
The main focus is on empowerment evaluation by incorporating the program participants into the evaluation
process, followed by a critical reflection on the program evaluated. An external partner evaluator serves as a
consultant and/or facilitator to the HEI, and seeks to understand the program pros and cons from the
perspective of the evaluated HEI or program. Internal pair-HEI audits are tools for the development of the
quality system fitting in the context: they do not replace a formal audit to be conducted by a certifying body.
The proposed processes will benefit from several partners’ know-how and experiences capitalized in a
marketplace, to reinforce assessment and follow-up plans within partner institutions. Two institutions
engaged in a cross-sparring process will benefit from a win-win approach, and gain from the understanding
of other internal quality improvement systems or other national quality assurance systems.
WP5 will base its C-S process inputs and resources on the reference models delivered in WP3 and unified in
the marketplace (comprehensive view of several EU quality systems for higher education).
1. the first preparation phase for a regular cross-sparring may include tasks such as
establishing mission or vision, defining measurable goals and objectives for a program, examining or
refining an assessment plan (if one exists), planning the exploitation of the assessment results to be
improved, planning follow-ups to be performed, checking or correcting potential non objective
information in the marketplace, visit preparation (eg assessor or observer kit, materials for the site
visit, scheduling), etc. For each partner, the tasks may be different depending on the institutional
contexts (eg small dynamic program or university level) and maturity: written plans or
recommendations to provide advice could be issued at a faculty member level or program committee
level. Some tasks may be time-consuming and WP5 will particularly consider this aspect to favor
usability and practicality;
2. the second mutual visit phase where rules may be followed: the “auditor/observer and the
auditee” must have a constructive approach, on a voluntary basis, including exchange. Peers (at
least two) review the elements of the first phase, manage on site visits and collaboratively identify
the best improvement plans in each institutional context, including measurable criteria of success. It
is therefore in the interests of the various parties to invest as much as possible in this phase so as to
optimize and sustain development plans. At the end of a visit, an “end of the day” report is delivered
so as to shorten the cycle of development and favor reactivity. Right after the visit, program leaders
can follow-up the implementation and exploit recommendations with the ultimate goal of quality
enhancement (achieve the objectives set out in the reference models).
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 16 of 39
3. the third post-visit phase where feedbacks, development themes and plans are formalized
and capitalized in reports.
Cross-sparrings will thus permit to identify more collectively the challenges that a program faces, and to
retain initiatives for the development plans. Cross sparrings results will influence the marketplace. During the
project, as a first iteration, an analysis and enhancement of the processes will be realized, after piloting 4
test-bed C-S among partners (evaluated and evaluator), based on collected and analyzed feedback data
from WP2. As a second iteration, relying on the participation of external pilot institutions (WP8), peer
feedback will be analyzed to define the most important and fruitful development areas and themes, both for
reference models and marketplace. Linked to references and criteria explicit in the marketplace, these return
on experience will provide inputs for WP6: changes and improvements themes related to reference models
will be analyzed collaboratively via workshops.
A study will be conducted on how the C-S processes related to specific reference models (eg. curriculum
development & sustainability) can be transferred to other universities and disciplines. Tailoring guidelines will
thus be delivered for aligning with specific features of institutions in selected degree programmes, among
the partners, and, more broadly, for the European area.
WP5 is divided into three sets of tasks (WP5.Ti):
[WP5.Task1] Definition of a generic cross-sparring procedure (C-S process)

1. survey, analyze and evaluate the current practices in cross-sparring for higher education quality
improvement in the partner institutions and networks, if any are formalized;
2. define roles and activities of two or more partners for a cross-sparing process, relying on the
marketplace information (program or institution criteria, reference instances);
3. order activities and associated tasks, formalizing resources, inputs and outputs for a C-S process;
4. develop preliminary guidelines and a kit to support a pair wise cross-sparing procedure, eg based on
tasks such as WP3 reference models and marketplace information selection, visit preparation, visit, and
follow-up;
5. clarify confidentiality issues of elements to be used from the marketplace.
Inputs: reference models (WP3), evidence types per reference models within the marketplace,
Outputs: a documented generic CS Process, including kits for both type of partners (evaluated and
evaluator)
[WP5.Task2] Pilot Study: Operating the cross-sparring procedure between project partners and
pilot institutions
1. choose at least 4 pairs of partners, based on WP4 criteria and information from the marketplace;;
2. plan and support the four C-S process instances between partner institutions;
3. identify quantitative indicators for activities of the C-S process to be grasped, collected and analyzed
by WP2,
4. collect C-S reports including development activity plans based on the C-S:
○ verify that peer feedbacks are analyzed in each HEI to define the most important development areas
and themes;
○ collect new or refined examples of evidence and good practices for WP4 and WP6.
Inputs: criteria of selection of pairs (WP3) and marketplace information (WP4)

Outputs: C-S reports and elements of evidence and best practices for WP6
[WP5.Task3] Analysis and enhancement of the cross-sparring coupling and process

1. for each cross-sparring operated during the project, analyze quantitative and qualitative feedbacks
thanks to the online questionnaire of WP2 (e.g. time spent, time of preparation, selection criteria and
algorithm may be revised in a second step);
2. refine generic cross-sparing procedure and enhance the C-S process;
3. study how the Quality Enhancement C-S process can be transferred to other contexts (e.g. business
schools) and develop tailoring guidelines (e.g. variety of programmes and institutions);
4. study how to make the activity sustainable and financially reasonable at institutional level;
5. update documents and kits, create a visit package so that two HEIs can cross-sparre;
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 17 of 39
Inputs: return on experiences analysis from WP2
Outputs: a refined C-S process with tailoring guidelines and kits (to be exploited in WP7 and WP8)
Prof. Gabrielle Landrac (Director of Education, TB). Tenured since 2005 at TB and accredited to
supervise research in the French university system (dissertation: “telecommunication systems: pedagogical
and technological innovations”, UMR CNRS 6165), she holds a PhD degree in Electronic from the University
of Brest. As director of education and dean of academic affairs since 2007, she manages directly 32 persons
and is in full charge of education at TB: engineering and Master degrees, continuous education, VET and e-
learning. This means being at the interface with all the stakeholders, recruiting students, linking with
industry, architecting educational programs, delivering degrees; it also includes steering groups for
proposing innovative curricula and pedagogical methods in accordance with French and European
requirements and strategies. She has an extensive experience in the accreditation procedures for higher
engineering programs (e.g. French Commission des Titres d’Ingénieurs, CTI). She has been selected as an
expert assessor for the CTI in 2013. She was a guest scientist in National Institute for Information and
Communications Technology (NICT), Yokosuka, Japan in 2006 and winner of the Roberval 2001 award in
multimedia for education category. She was president of a council of the French spastics association (APF)
and from 1998 to 2003 responsible for the development of discussion groups.
Siegfried Rouvrais currently works as an Associate Professor at Telecom Bretagne. For more than ten
years now, he has been particularly involved in educational program design and development, with a focus
on experiential learning, vocational education, non formal learning, certifications and student domains of
competence. He has authored or co-authored 40 peer-reviewed scientific and educational papers, supervised
half a dozen PhD students and half a hundred B.Eng. thesis projects. He his author of several international
publications in engineering education (IEEE, European Journal of Engineering Education, French Colloquium
on pedagogy, CDIO). His current scholarly interests are in certification, accreditation, and continuous
improvement processes for Higher Education Institution reforms. He plays an active role at his institution for
improvement of programs and collaborates to preparation of program self-evaluation reports (e.g. French
CTI). Dr. Rouvrais received his Ph.D. in Computer Science from the French INRIA Lab. and University of
Rennes, France, in 2002.
Ph.D. 1978, Claire Lassudrie is a researcher in the area of software process assessment and improvement
and risk management. She works as an Associate Professor at Telecom Bretagne since 2003. Before that,
she worked during 20 years in France Telecom Research and Development Center (Orange Labs), where she
was involved in a major process improvement program based upon ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7/IS 15504 (SPICE).
She also took part to several European projects (Eurescom) dealing with Telecom Suppliers evaluation and
monitoring. She is a competent SPICE assessor and she contributes to ISO and French AFNOR
standardization groups working groups on System and Software Engineering. Mrs Lassudrie has run many
courses at Master levels in the area of quality, process improvement and software engineering, both for
engineering students and vocational. She recently piloted a semester student project for self-evaluating
Telecom Bretagne educational framework thanks to maturity standards. Mrs Lassudrie is also an active
member of the Telecom Bretagne quality assurance group.

Title Tailored guidelines and general kit to support cross-sparring procedures
Type of outputs / A framework and supporting tools and guidance – these will be available in
products / results both paper and electronic form
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 18 of 39
Public
project reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Event
Other
Language
versions English
As deliverables, WP5 will include guidelines and a kit. It will be implemented and operated by partner No
6 (TB) and supported on testing phases by all the other partners. The first proposed guidelines and kit of
WP5 will be introduced and tested within the project partner pool. They will be delivered online, under
public access, on the project website, and proposed for dissemination (WP7). These public reports, to be
assessed by WP2, will include the following elements:
● set of rules for cross-sparrings, e.g. the evaluated HEI will have to ensure the proper conduct of
the sparring procedure, by implementing the means necessary to proper preparation (e.g. sending
documents in time in the marketplace), making available all necessary documents, mobilizing resources
during visit, respect, etc. This may include:
■ terminology
■ confidentiality principles
■ evaluator obligations
■ evaluatee obligations
■ reciprocal obligations
● a formalized C-S process with:
a. its documentation defining roles and tasks,
b. ordered activities and tasks,
c. inputs for quality enhancement C-S process based on reference models and/or
marketplace,
d. outputs for internal and collaborative workshops on themes and developments;
e. textual explanation of the process, phase by phase, for both stakeholders (ie evaluated
and evaluator) to be involved in a C-S process;
● a kit to create a C-S report, including templates for both partners, development and action plans.
A C-S report will possibly include two documents:
a. an “end of the day” visit report of no more than 1 to 2 pages, with:
■ brief description of the HEI and/or programs (significant figures and facts)
■ list of impressive experiences
■ list of strengths
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 19 of 39
■ list of challenges
■ list of open questions
■ signature of both partners
b. an evaluation report, which may include:
■ objectives of the evaluation
■ prerequisites
■ context (institutions involved and pair selection criteria)
■ planning and actors
■ models, tools and method used
■ summary of points investigated
■ financial questions, if required
■ process, results, strengths and improvements, potential adaptations
■ development and action plans
■ inputs and roadmap for self workshops, theme workshops and development
workshops (cf. WP6)
■ procedure validity if applicable, etc.
● as annexes, tailoring recommendations to take into account adaptation to institutions specificities
(size, maturity …), finance and resource study for practicability;
Title Study on the cross-sparring process
Type of outputs /
Study/analysis
products / results
Public
project reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Event
Other
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 20 of 39
Language
versions English
All institutional partners of the project will work together to operate and test cross-sparrings (C-S) and to
give quality and quantity feedbacks so as to refine the predefined processes. With 8 project partners, at
least 4 C-S will be operated, complemented by potential pilot institution newcomers. This WP5 report will
merge all the cross-sparring reports and provide an analysis of the cross-sparrings conducted.
This study analysis report will thus contain:
● quantitative indicators collected and valuated from the cross-sparring activities operated during
the project, and summarized
● qualitative feedbacks from the questionnaire (WP2), and overall analysis of strengths and
weaknesses (WP2)
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 21 of 39
Identification
Work package
Work package number 6 Quality Enhancement workshops
title
Management
testing, etc)
Dissemination
Start End Duration

4 19
WP6 will pilot three kind of Quality Enhancement Workshops :

1) workshops supporting the HEIs starting the QAEMP –process (kick-off )
2) workshops supporting the continuity of the evaluation process (follow-up).
3) workshops which utilize the information collected in the Market Place (theme workshops).
The main goal of the Workshops is to offer HEIs support in their quality enhancement and assurance
process. This happens in two ways: first of all there will be workshops supporting the HEIs to start, conduct
and continue their evaluation process. Secondly there will be workshops dealing with the most common
quality issues based on the information collected in the Market Place. The latter are open for all interested
HEIs. Partner 2, TUAS, coordinates the WP6.
There will be two kind of supportive workshops arranged during the QAEMP process. Before the first step of
the evaluation process (self-evaluation) the HEIs will attend a kick-off workshop which helps them to get
their evaluation process started and ensures the self-evaluation is conducted in a way it produces right kind
of information to enable participation in the cross-sparring. In the kick-off workshop the self-evaluation
framework, use of the Market Place and the cross-sparring method are introduced.
After cross-sparring HEIs will take part in a collaborative follow-up workshop which aims at supporting the
start of the changes in the participated HEIs and encourages them to continue the evaluation process cycle.
In these workshops the results of the cross-sparring are further discussed. This workshop fortifies the
benefits of the cross-sparring by promoting the exchange of the best practices, sharing experiences and
development ideas between HEIs between the cross-sparring partners.
The project will pilot the concept of these supportive workshops and produce guidelines to help to arrange
them independently. These guidelines and materials will be available in the Market Place free for all
registered users.
The theme workshops are open for all interested and deal with the most common development issues.
These issues are chosen based on the information collected in the Market Place during self-evaluation and
cross-sparring. Theme workshops will be arranged in pursuance of international conferences to ensure the
widest possible audience. Theme workshops also support the dissemination of the QAEMP –process and the
Market Place. The project will pilot the Market Place as a source of this kind of information and provide a
quick user guide about how to retrieve this information from the Market Place.
This work package is divided to different tasks as follows:
[WP6 Task 1]: Piloting the Kick-off workshop: defining and organising a pilot supportive
workshop to help HEIs to get their QAEMP –process started.
1. Providing description on the contents, materials, implementation of the workshop meetings and outlining
the practical issues concerning the planning, implementing and evaluation of supportive workshops.
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 22 of 39
2. Arranging workshops to provide support for the self-evaluation process. A host and a facilitator are
nominated for each workshop to support the process. The workshops are face-to-face meetings to ensure
genuine cooperation and interaction between the participants. Preparatory materials are available at the
Market Place.
3. Collecting feedback from the participants and developing the concept.
4. Producing guidelines to help to conduct the workshop independently.
Inputs: Enrolments from the Market Place, guidance notes and tools provided in WP3, WP4 and WP5.
Outputs: Outlines for the workshops, workshop materials, guidelines.
[WP6 Task 2]: Piloting the Follow-up workshop: defining and organising pilot workshops to
support the continuous quality enhancement process after cross-sparring.
1. Providing description on the contents, working methods, implementation of the workshop meetings and
outlining the practical issues concerning the planning, implementing and evaluation of supportive workshops.
2. Arranging workshops to provide support for the continuous process and getting the changes started. A
host and a facilitator are nominated for each workshop to support the process. The workshops are face-to-
face meetings to ensure genuine cooperation and interaction between the participants thus fostering open
discussion, shared experiences and innovative thinking. Preparatory materials are available at the Market
Place.
3. Collecting feedback from the participants and developing the concept.
4. Producing guidelines to help to conduct the workshop independently.
Inputs: Results from the cross-sparring

Outputs: Outlines for the workshops, workshop materials, feedback, guidelines and a kit.
[WP6 Task 3]: Piloting the Theme workshop: Defining and organising collaborative theme
workshops
1. Analysing the information collected in the Market Place after S-E and C-S processes to identify and
determine the most common or important development themes for the collaborative theme workshops.
2. Providing description on the contents, working methods, implementation of the workshop meeting and
outlining the practical issues concerning the planning, implementing and evaluation of collaborative theme
workshops.
3. Arranging workshops. A host and a facilitator are nominated for the workshop to support the process. The
workshops are face-to-face meetings to ensure genuine cooperation and interaction between the
participants thus fostering open discussion, shared experiences and innovative thinking. Preparatory
materials are available at the Market Place.
4. Collecting feedback, evaluating and enhancing the concept of Theme workshops and Market Place as a
source of information.
Inputs: The results of the S-E and C-S processes (WP3 and WP5) collected from the Market Place.
Outputs: Selected workshop themes, groups, quick guide.
Juha Kontio received the M.S. degree in Computer Science from the University of Jyväskylä in 1991. He
received his Ph.D. in Information Systems from Turku School of Economics in 2004. His dissertation focused
on diffusion of database innovations in six different organizations in Finland. At the moment he is the Dean
of the Faculty of Business, ICT and Life Sciences at Turku University of Applied Sciences. Earlier he has
worked as Principal Lecturer and Degree Program Manager in Business Information Systems. Nowadays his
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 23 of 39
research interest has moved to higher education related topics. He has presented and published in
numerous international conferences topics such as internationalization, quality assurance, staff development
and organizational issues of information systems. He has been responsible of the quality assurance work and
processes in the Faculty of Telecommunication and e-Business since 2004. He has been the project
manager of two international projects on Quality Assurance since 2009. He is the co-leader of the CDIO
European region and CDIO collaborator at Turku University of Applied Sciences.
Janne Roslöf is Principal Lecturer in Software Engineering and Degree Programme Manager at Turku
University of Applied Sciences (TUAS). He holds a D.Sc. in Process Systems Engineering from Åbo Akademi
University, Finland. He has authored 30 peer-reviewed scientific papers, supervised more than 180 B.Eng.
thesis projects and mentored several university-industry projects. Before joining TUAS he was working in
industrial Telecom software R&D. In addition, Mr. Roslöf is also engaged in education development on local,
national and international levels. For example, he was the head of the Teaching and Learning Core Group of
a national engineering education development project (INSSI) in Finland 2008/09 - 2011/02. He is also a
member of the board of the Finnish Engineering Education Directors’ Association since 2007.
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 24 of 39
Title Kick-off workshop
Type of outputs /
Workhops, methodology/guidelines
products / results
Public
Delivery date M5
project reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Event
Other
Language
versions English
The kick-off workshop helps HEIs to get their evaluation process started and ensures the self-evaluation is
conducted in a way it produces right kind of information to enable participation in the cross-sparring. In
the kick-off workshop the self-evaluation framework, use of the Market Place and the cross-sparring
method are introduced.
A host and a facilitator are nominated for each workshop to support the process. The workshops are face-
to-face meetings to ensure genuine cooperation and interaction between the participants. Preparatory
Also guidelines and materials to help to conduct the workshop independently are produced. These
guidelines and materials will be available in the Market Place free for all registered users.
Title Follow-up workshop
Type of outputs /
products / results
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 25 of 39
Public
Delivery date M 22
project reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Event
Other
Language
versions English
After cross-sparring HEIs will take part in a collaborative follow-up workshop which aims at supporting the
start of the changes in the participated HEIs and encourages them to continue the evaluation process
cycle. In these workshops the results of the cross-sparring are further discussed. This workshop fortifies
the benefits of the cross-sparring by promoting the exchange of the best practices, sharing experiences
and development ideas between HEIs between the cross-sparring partners.
Also guidelines and materials to help to conduct the workshop independently are produced. These
guidelines and materials will be available in the Market Place free for all registered users.
Title Theme workshop
Type of outputs /
products / results
Public
Delivery date M 22
project reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Event
Other
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 26 of 39
Language
versions English

The theme workshops are open for all interested and deal with the most common development issues.
These issues are chosen based on the information collected in the Market Place during self-evaluation and
cross-sparring processes. Theme workshops will be arranged in pursuance of international conferences to
ensure the widest possible audience. Theme workshops also support the dissemination of the QAEMP –
process and the Market Place. The project will pilot the Market Place as a source of this kind of
information and provide a quick user guide about how to retrieve this information from the Market Place.
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 27 of 39
Identification
Work package
Work package number 7 Dissemination
title
Management
testing, etc)
Dissemination
Start End Duration

1 36
Description of the work package (limit 3000 characters) 3304
The main contribution of the project will be a marketplace for quality assurance and enhancement for higher
education institutions through cross sparring.
Thus the target audiences for the dissemination are defined as

T1. HEIs in general and initially members of the project organization:
T2. European National Agencies for higher education in general and initially those of Denmark,
Finland, France, Iceland, Sweden and United Kingdom
T3. ENQA.
The objectives of the dissemination are to

O1. make the target groups aware of the project,
O2. provide a platform that allows the target groups find out more about the project,
O3. build a brand that the target groups can associate with and comfortable use in their own
communication.
The dissemination activities defined are aligned with the objectives (O1-O3) of the dissemination towards
target audiences (T1-T3):
 Publications (conference papers) in suitable conferences

 Set up a virtual platform, website, which will facilitate interaction and dialogue with stakeholders
 Set up a stakeholder network to support efficient and effective communication with interested
parties
 Produce e-newsletters and distribute them to stakeholders
 Issue a series of stakeholder briefing papers to describe emerging results at key stages of the
project’s life
 Arrange conference workshops and Multiplier Events
 Arrange an ENQA workshop
 Final report
P8 (UmU) is responsible for leading this work package and all other partners are responsible for supporting
the dissemination strategy in their own countries. P7 will liaise with the other partners monthly ensure that
they are aware and progressing their responsibilities as part of this work package. Each partner has to take
a lead within the own country on dissemination and help to raise awareness amongst targeted stakeholders
in their own local, region and national context.
As a part of the management team we will be coordinating our work with all other work packages. All other
work packages leaders are aware of the project requirements for our work package and we will work
together to ensure the dissemination strategy runs on time and produces accurate, quality and effective
communications for our stakeholders in all partner languages, where appropriate.
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 28 of 39
The performance indicators for the specific aims are as follows:
 Stakeholder and partner feedback re. effectiveness of dissemination products
 Stakeholder and partner feedback re. contents of dissemination products
The indicators for the activities are as follows:

 Website
 No of hits on website
 No of downloads from website resulting from our actions
 No of ways in which stakeholders came to hear about the project
 No of stakeholders registered on stakeholder network
 No of ways in which stakeholders came to hear about the project
 E-newsletters produced
 Stakeholder briefing papers produced
 Number of dissemination products downloaded from website
[WP7 Task 1] Delivering detailed dissemination plans

Creating dissemination strategy for internal and external conferences and seminars for each partner
institution to report the progress of QAEMarketPlace. This will engage academic contacts and some national
agencies or associations.
Outputs: Dissemination plans for each partner
[WP7 Task 2] Newsletter, website, publications, stakeholder briefing papers

All partners will be involved in presenting results and also in identifying additional opportunities to present at
EU wide events.
Inputs: Reports from WP1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Outputs: Publications in conferences (D7.1.); Launch of initial website platform and stakeholder network
(D7.2); On-line briefing presentation for stakeholders and video interviews with project partners (D7.3);
project E-Newsletters (D7.4); Stakeholder Briefing Papers: yearly reports (D7.6), Summary of lessons
learned (D7.5.), Summary report from the QAEMarketPlace project (D7.7.).
[WP7 Task 3] Interaction with the higher education ecosystem in engineering

This work package will also manage the general public promotion of the QAEMarketPlace results and
benefits with partners to facilitate the adoption of flexible self and cross-sparring evaluations in other EU
institutions. The respective dissemination will be researched, developed and realized via the website, social
media, e-mail, conferences, papers and through partner networks. Personnel of the project are active
members in different kind of organizations, such as ENQA, SEFI, IACEE, CDIO, NORDTEK. Also each partner
HEI has its own international and national partner networks, such as CARPE and ARENE (TUAS), CGE and
RELIER (TB), TUF/RET and Samverkansgruppen (UmU), IMG (QUB).
Outputs: Interaction with public and networks both utilizing different kind of media and face to face;
conference papers;
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 29 of 39
Fredrik Georgsson received the M.Sc. of Eng degree in 1996, the Ph.D. in Computing Science in 2001,
both from Umeå University. His doctoral dissertation focused on algorithms for automatic analysis of medical
mages. Since 2001 he has carried out research within the mathematical foundation for image analysis but
during the later years focus has shifted towards quality issues within higher education in general and in
engineering education in particular. Since 2007 he is a programme director for a software engineering
programme at Umeå University and a member of the Quality Council of the Faculty of Science and
Technology. Since 2010 he is an assistant Faculty Director of studies at the Faculty of Science and
Technology at Umeå University. He is one of the co-responsible for the Quality Assurance System used at
the faculty of Science and Technology at Umeå University. He is a co-leader of the CDIO European region
and CDIO collaborator at Umeå University.
Lennart Nilsson, Ph D in mathematical statistics, has since 2006 acted as Faculty Director of Studies and
has as Chairman of the Quality Council for the Faculty of Science and Technology been main responsible for
developing a Quality Assurance System for undergraduate education. The system is based on a Course
Assessment System and involves a yearly Programme Evaluation. Based on the evaluation an Activity Plan
are developed and the Faculty of Science and Technology has funding to implement projects identified in the
Activity Plan. The system operates on a yearly cycle and is implemented to 33 study programmes at the
faculty.
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 30 of 39
Title Publications in conferences
Type of outputs /
Ten conference papers
products / results
Public
Delivery date M 6 – M 24
project reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Event
Other
Language
versions English

The partners will take part in suitable conferences and present conference papers and posters that will
present the QAEMarketPlace project, results and lesson learned for the project. Target confs: European
journal of Engineering education, ICEE, SEFI conf, French QPES (questions de pedagogies dans
l’enseignement supérieur) or AIPU (Association internationale de pédagogie the yearly European Quality
Assurance Forums, possibly other EUA (European University Association’s) events, and SEFI annual
conferences. The aim is to introduce the QAEMarketPlace ideology to stakeholders and get them
interested in the project model and results. There will publish at least one conference paper per work
package 3, 4 and 5 and then there will be three joint conference papers.
Title Website and stakeholder network infrastructure
Type of outputs /
Initial website presence and stakeholder registration format
products / results
Public
Delivery date M4
project reviewers)
Nature Report
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 31 of 39
Service / Product
Demonstrator / Prototype
Event
Other
Language
versions English
The website will contain regularly updated information about the project, its aims, objectives and a
summary timeline. It will also include information and links to partner websites. The website will mainly
have two parts:
1. An area for public presentation of the project materials, e.g. reports, video, newsletter and
briefing papers. As part of the initial website presence new stakeholders will be able to register to
the project which will help the dissemination and exploitation materials to appropriate groups.
2. A restricted area to support partner’s communication and to file their material.
Title Online presentation for stakeholders
Type of outputs /
products / results
Public
Delivery date M6
project reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Event
Other
Language
versions All partner languages
Target languages n/a

On online presentation will be designed and produced in all partner languages to provide all
stakeholders with an overview and introduction to the QAEMarketPlace project. The presentation will
include video interviews with the partner organisation who will explain why the QAEMarketPlace project
is important to them and their organisations.
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 32 of 39
Title Project E-Newsletters
Type of outputs / E-newsletter to provide stakeholders with general update on project progress
products / results and emerging results
Public
M5, Bi-annual to Dissemination services and project reviewers)
Delivery date
M24 level Confidential, only for members of
project reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Event
Other
Language
E-newsletters will be produced at 6 monthly intervals. Each of these 6 publications will be developed in
line with the corporate brand for the project, produced in all partner languages and circulate via our
stakeholder network. Each E-newsletter will provide details of our progress against project plan, upcoming
events in relation to the project and an overview of the emerging results. Each one will be a minimum of
4 sides of A4 and will include links to the website. The E-newsletters will be available as downloads from
the website.
Deliverable number D7.5. Stakeholder Briefing Paper
Title Lessons learned from the piloting of the model
Type of outputs /
Short briefing paper for stakeholders
products / results
Public
Delivery date M 24
project reviewers)
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 33 of 39
Report
Service / Product
Event
Other
Language
versions English
After we have completed piloting of the model we will have accumulated a considerable amount of
information and feedback from contributing stakeholders. This information will be summarised in this
briefing report and sent back to stakeholders who have participated in the sign-up briefings.
We will use e-mail to engage with stakeholders to get their feedback and reflections on the Briefing Paper.
P4 (Metropolia) collects and analyses the feedback with a web-questionnaire (WP2).
Title Briefing Papers: Summary of lessons learned from the project

Briefing papers for general public summarising results from pilots in all partner
Type of outputs /
countries re. use of second draft prototypes supported by email cascade and
products / results
blog
Public
M 6 participants (including Commission
M 12 Dissemination services and project reviewers)
Delivery date
M 18 level Confidential, only for members of
M 24 the consortium (including EACEA
project reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Event
Other
Language
There will be two public yearly reports the will give an overview of the partner’s experiences in the
QAEMarketPlace project. They will be distributed through the stakeholder network and beyond through an
email cascade and provide a link to the full report which will be available on the website.
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 34 of 39
Title Final report
Type of outputs /
Summary report from CoopQA project
products / results
Public
Delivery date M 24
project reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Event
Other
Language
versions English
The final report of the project will summarize the results and experience of the QAEMarketPlace project. It
will be distributed through the stakeholder network and beyond through an email cascade and provide a
link to the full report which will be available on the website. Potentialities for continuing and more deeply
the project effort within the Erasmus 4 all programme or via national networks, future strategy, etc.
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 35 of 39
Identification
Work package
Work package number 8 Exploitation
title
Management
testing, etc)
Dissemination
Start End Duration

9 16
This work package will focus on supporting the implementation of the methodology of self-evaluation (S-E)
and cross-sparring (C-S) within European HEIs particularly to non-engineering disciplines (NEDs).
While WP7 will focus on dissemination within the engineering community WP8 will utilise the outputs of the
other work packages and some of the same approaches but applied to other disciplines.
The strategy will be to first grow the non-engineering disciplinary implementations within the partner
institutions thus providing a basis from which these disciplines can exploit the outcomes of this project by
disseminating this practice within their own national and European networks in a sustainable manner.
Task 1 – Identification of non-engineering discipline (NED) stakeholders at partner institutions.

 Utilising project partners and educational development specialists / units within partner
institutions identify key stakeholders
 Provide a documentation pack for project partners to promote QAEMP to other disciplines
within their institution, including edited versions of the WP7 e-newsletters used in the
dissemination process.
 Coordinate and maintain a register of NED stakeholders across partner institutions
Task 2 – Validation of core outputs from NED self-evaluations (S-E) as suitable for entry into an expanded
marketplace to include NEDs. (inputs defined within WP3)
 Collate definitions of stakeholder NED self-evaluation / internal QA tools
 Sort and order S-E outputs across disciplines and institutions with respect to WP3
requirements
Task 3 – Support pilot NED implementations in project partner institutions

 Adapt WP5 guidelines and modify kits to support pairwise cross-sparing procedure for
NEDs, based on WP3 marketplace requirements
 Facilitate NED introductory seminars at partner institutions during project meeting visits
Task 4 – Identify opportunities for sustainable exploitation of QAEMarketplace within NED networks.
 Collate NED network information (disciplinary conferences, accreditation bodies, research
collaborations etc.)
 Produce a timetable matrix of NED opportunities to participate in the supportive workshops
of WP6, aimed to help interested HEIs get their S-E / C-S processes started.
Task 5 – Supplement website platform and stakeholder network website portal (launched in WP7 D7.2) with
content tailored for NEDs
 Provide NED specific “newsfeed” content for project website
 As per WP7; Issue a series of stakeholder briefing papers to describe emerging results at
key stages of the project’s life, but with particular emphasis on NED pilot implementations
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 36 of 39
John Paul Hermon, Senior Lecturer (Education) , Programme Director – Product Design Engineering
degrees
• School Management Board (elected member 2009 - 2013)

• MEng graduate 1987 (Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering)
• Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education Teaching 2006
• Co-Chair CDIO UK & Ireland region
• Fellow of the Higher Education Academy
• Fellow of the RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of arts, manufactures and commerce)
• Queen’s Teaching Award winner 2008. Citation: “The award is made to an innovative teacher who
has effectively redesigned aspects of the curriculum in order to develop students' competency in all phases
of product development, from conception and design to implementation and operation (CDIO). The panel
was impressed by his student-centred approach to group work, based on careful analysis of students'
learning styles. The variety of approaches to assessment, including systematic use of peer assessment and
the use of student feedback to evaluate the effectiveness of the assessment methods are particular
strengths of the module.”
Charles Declan McCartan, Senior Lecturer (Education), Advisor of Studies – Product Design and
Development degrees
• Chair - Student Staff Consultative Committee

• Member of Management Group: Centre for Excellence in Active & Interactive Learning (CEAIL): The
Centre developed and implemented new pedagogical models for curriculum design and delivery based on
active and interactive approaches to learning. The Centre was created in order to improve the development
of generic and subject-specific skills, and enhance student employability
• MEng graduate 1991 (Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering)
• PhD Mechanical Engineering 1995
• Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education Teaching 2007
• Fellow of the Higher Education Academy
• Member of the Society of Automotive Engineers
• Technical Consultant for Race Engine Technology Magazine
• HEA Engineering Subject Centre Mini-Project Award 2010
• Queen’s Teaching Award winner 2010. Citation: "Dr McCartan has responded effectively to the
global problem of teaching mathematics to engineers. He uses feedback from his students to make
appropriate changes to his assessment methods and these changes have resulted in significant
improvements in his students' performance, attendance and evaluations"
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 37 of 39
Title Documentation pack
Type of outputs /
products / results
Public
Delivery date M 10
project reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Event
Other
Language
versions English

A documentation pack for project partners to promote QAEMP to other disciplines within their institution,
including edited versions of the WP7 e-newsletters used in the dissemination process.
Title Modified guidelines and kits for NEDs
Type of outputs /
Guides, kits
products / results
Public
Delivery date M21
project reviewers)
Report
Service / Product
Nature
Demonstrator / Prototype
Event
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 38 of 39
Other
Language
versions English

Adapt WP5 guidelines and modify kits to support pairwise cross-sparing procedure for NEDs, based on
WP3 marketplace requirements.
QAEMarketPlace4HEI
Page 39 of 39

Project Work Pack Example

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Project Work Pack Example

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Work plan and work packages

Start End Duration

Description of the work package (limit 3000 characters)

[WP1. Task 1] Project management

Inputs: Progress reports from WP leaders.

[WP1. Task 2] Financial management

Inputs: Budget reports from WP leaders every 3 months.

[WP1. Task 3] Documentation

Personnel in charge of the work package implementation:

Start 1 End 24 Duration

Description of the work package (limit 3000 characters)

A general procedure of tasks of WP2 are:

The realization of above-mentioned activities will result in the following aspects:

Inputs: National and international QA requirements and guidelines, partner reports.

[WP2. Task 2] Ensuring the quality of the documentation

Inputs: Project documents, General documentation guidelines

[WP2. Task 3] Establishing Quality Expert team

Inputs: Project documentation, reports and other relevant materials

Personnel in charge of the work package implementation:

Deliverables – outputs / products / results

Deliverable number D2.1

Title The Quality Handbook

Target languages English

Description (limit 1000 characters)

Deliverable number D2.2

Title The Quality Expert team meetings

Target languages English

Description (limit 1000 characters)

Deliverable number D2.3

Target languages English

Description (limit 1000 characters)

Deliverable number D2.3

Description (limit 1000 characters)

Deliverable number D2.4

Title The evaluation questionnaires

Target languages English

Description (limit 1000 characters)

Deliverable number D2.5

Target languages English

Description (limit 1000 characters)

Start End Duration

Description of the work package (limit 3000 characters)

Task 1 – Defining the framework for the Market Place

Task 2 –Defining the Self Evaluation Framework ‘Prototype’

Task 3 – Self Evaluation Process Review

Task 4 – Statutory Document Review

Task 5 – Framework Review

Task 6 – Implementation Tools and Guidance

Task 7 – Ongoing Review

Personnel in charge of the work package implementation:

Deliverables – outputs / products / results

Deliverable number D3.1.

Title Institutional Self Evaluation

Target languages English

Description (limit 1000 characters)

Start End Duration

Description of the work package (limit 3000 characters)

The objectives of the WP4 are

The WP4 is divided to tasks as follows:

[WP4 Task 1]: Description of the Market Place

[WP4 Task 2]: Establishing the algorithm of the Market Place

[WP4 Task 3]: Establishing a prototype of the Market Place

Inputs: The prototype market place (task 3)