1 / 12

FONOMOC

Join Fonomoc to exchange knowledge and experience on noise monitoring systems, conduct peer reviews, identify new developments, collaborate in EU funded projects, and promote noise monitoring and Big Data usage.

alleno
Download Presentation

FONOMOC

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. FONOMOC  www.workinggroupnoise.com/fonomoc@fonomoc henk.wolfert@dcmr.nl

  2. Objectives • Exchange of knowledge en experience on noise monitoring systems • To carry out peer reviews • To identify new developments and innovations • To identify and to collaborate in EU funded projects (H2020, LIFE, INTERREG and URBACT) • To promote noise monitoring and to elaborate and use Big Data

  3. Themestoday • Introduction • Presentations and discussions • Lessons learnt from b • Peer Review instrument • Next meeting

  4. Peer Review Noise Monitoring Systems Identifying room forimprovement henk.wolfert@dcmr.nl

  5. Content • What is a Peer Review? • Process in brief • Strengths and weaknesses • How to interview

  6. What is a peer review? • Assessment byexternal experts/colleagues • Based on: • Self assessment • Technical Specifications/documentation • Questionnaire • Processincludes: • Desk review of 1,2 and 3 • Interview with the team of institute/stakeholders • Field visit

  7. Processin brief • Instruction team members • Data collection and study (questionnaire, background reports, etc.) • Scrutiny information delivered • Preparation, peer leader • Interviews with operators and stakeholders, etc • Site visits to the NMS to be reviewed • Presentation of (first) results • Report with recommendations • Action plan for improvement (optional) • Second review after Xmonths (optional)

  8. Strengths • Fresh look at the work and the system • Stimulation internal and external discussions • Mixture of data, information and expert opinions • Benchmarking is possible • Peers are not a threat • External evaluation

  9. Weaknesses • Composition of the peer team • Language • Culture could be different • Time could be too short • Preparation time reviewers/practioners

  10. Lessonsprevious peer reviews • Review team with more corporate and political weight • Examine options for more effective communication • More background information before the review • Possibility of extending length of review (which is planned to be one day) at by using Skype • Polite questioning in order to avoid a defensive attitude • Open questions, no closed questions • Ask - Listen – Summarize - Questioning

  11. How to interview? • Question(s) • Listening (actively) • Questioning (appropriately) • Summarise (accurately) • Feedback • Conclude • Target setting (SMART) Open questions • Open Question allow respondents to think, reflect and offer opinion or express feelings: • What? - focus on events • Why? - focus on meaning & motive • How? - focus on the process • Who ? - a focus on the personnel

More Related