1 / 11

Planning evaluation 2014 - 2020 An example - ERDF Berlin Dr. Oliver Schwab

Planning evaluation 2014 - 2020 An example - ERDF Berlin Dr. Oliver Schwab IfS Institut für Stadtforschung und Strukturpolitik. Overview. ERDF OP of Berlin - the E valuation Subject Evaluation System - the Structure Planning Evaluation - the Process Conclusions. The subject.

lmeyer
Download Presentation

Planning evaluation 2014 - 2020 An example - ERDF Berlin Dr. Oliver Schwab

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Planningevaluation 2014 - 2020 An example - ERDF Berlin Dr. Oliver Schwab IfS Institut für Stadtforschung und Strukturpolitik

  2. Overview • ERDF OP of Berlin - theEvaluation Subject • Evaluation System - theStructure • Planning Evaluation - theProcess • Conclusions

  3. The subject • ERDF-OP Berlin • Some 635 Mio. € ERDF • FourPriorities • Innovation • Specificobjective: Strengthening R&D in enterprises • Resultindicator: R&D-personnel in Berlin • Investment • Specificobjective: Increasingproductivity • Resultindicator: Growth rate ofproductivity (comparedtothe national average) • Climateprotection • Integrated urban development • OP will beformallysubmittedby end ofthismonth

  4. Structure: Monitoring andevaluationsystem - Overview Evaluation Externalfactors Indicator SystemMonitoring System ofobjectives Implementation Resultindicators Specificobjective Results Expectedresults Annual reportsInternal monitoringreports Output indicators(OP-specific) Outputs Common outputindicators Projects Actions Financial indicators

  5. Structure: Evaluations • One Evaluation study per priorityaxis • Scheduledfrom 2017 to 2019 • Possiblycovering pre-2014 dataandresultsforinstrumentsthathave not beenchanged • Predominantlytheory-based • Checkingifcomparison-group approachisfeasibleforpartsof PA 1 (innovation) • Additional ad-hoc-studies • Focused on implementation-relatedissues

  6. Process – First teps • 2012 • Call fortenderforexternalevaluationandstrategic support • Definingthebasicpatternoftheevaluationsystem • First decisions on theapproach in theoffer • Monitoring andevaluationsystemprofitsfromtheexperiencesofthe 2007 to 2013 period

  7. Process – Strategy Development • 2012/2013 • (More) strategicprogramming • DraftStrategy Outline (MA, June 2012) • Expert Workshop per Priority (Autumn 2012) • Development ofconcreteproposalstoimplementthestrategy • Consultation on a draftprogrammestructure (Summer 2013) • Crucialforfutureevaluation • Clear definitionofobjectives • Goodresultindicators • Selectionofinstrumentsasfocusedaspossible • Basis forfutureinterventionmodels

  8. Process – Planning Evaluation • 2014 • Literature Review • Reviewingacademicstudies plus available relevant evaluations (some 20 pages per priority) • (Re-)Constructionoftheinterventionmodelforeachpriority • Identificationofthe relevant externalfactors

  9. Process – Evaluation Plan • 2014 • The actualevaluation plan, per priority: • Definingtheconcreteevaluationquestions • Selectingthefocusforthestudies • Definingdatasources • Relation tomonitoring? • Additional owndatacollection? Methodsand Design? • Methodsforevaluation • Processesofevaluationanddiscussionofresults

  10. Conclusions • Intensive communicationis essential, linkingcompetencesof • Managing Authorities • Bodiesresponsibleforthedeliveryofsingleinstruments • Evaluation Team • Potential usersoftheevaluationresults (Monitoring Committee) • Coordinationofcrucialaspects • Developing a commonunderstandingoftheinterventionlogic • Coordinationofdatacollection (indicatordefinition!) • Link to Monitoring processes (usingexistingreportsandanalysis) • Coordinationwith additional evaluationactivities • Questionandpurposeoftheevaluation

  11. Conclusions • Internal evaluation plan • More comprehensiveanddetailedthanthe „official“ one • Training? • Specificsituation • Early involvment (andlong-term contract) • Goodrelationtomostactors • Possibilitytocoordinatewiththedevelopmentofthemonitoringsystemand additional evaluations • Most actorsareinterested in evaluation (or at least open for)

More Related