1 / 17

Lec. 11. Evaluation Process & Evaluation Criteria

HETC Project University Development Grants (UDGs) Training Program for Proposal Writers. Lec. 11. Evaluation Process & Evaluation Criteria. PRINCIPLES. Objectivity Fairness Competence Professionalism Relevance to the results to be achieved. UDG Review Panel (UDGRP).

beatrice-duke
Download Presentation

Lec. 11. Evaluation Process & Evaluation Criteria

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. HETC Project University Development Grants (UDGs) Training Program for Proposal Writers Lec. 11. Evaluation Process & Evaluation Criteria

  2. PRINCIPLES • Objectivity • Fairness • Competence • Professionalism • Relevance to the results to be achieved

  3. UDG Review Panel (UDGRP) UDGRP will consist of min 5 members • one of the Reviewers will be designated as the Anchor Reviewer Appointed by the UGC/MoHE Any potential conflict of interest should be prevented in the evaluation process • reviewers will not be allowed to evaluate proposals submitted by his/her own university or the institution that he/she has affiliation, financial connection or personal interest

  4. KEY STEPS Eligibility Check Desk Evaluation Site Evaluation Recommendation Ratification

  5. Eligibility Check • will be conducted by the MoHE • those satisfying the eligibility criteria will be forwarded for Desk Evaluation • Updated University/Institution Corporate Plan will also be forwarded to the review panel along with the proposal

  6. Desk Evaluation • Undertaken by a UDG Review Panel (UDGRP) • 5 members; One as the Anchor Reviewer • Carried out according to a set of evaluation criteria • Detailed Feedback will be provided to all • in the form of Reviewers’ Comments

  7. Desk Evaluation • If the proposal meets the selection criteria only partially, then • Revise and Resubmit • If the proposal fully meets the selection criteria, then • Site Evaluation

  8. Site Evaluation • By the same UDGRP that has conducted the Desk Evaluation • Main Objective • to assess the conformity between the written proposal & the ground realities, and • to draw a final judgement on the feasibility & implementability of the proposed plan • In particular • Validation of the data included in the proposal • Clarification of issues that have arose during the desk evaluation • Assessment of the university/institution’s commitment to the project activities outlined in the proposal

  9. Evaluation CRITERIA Relevance & Quality Enhancement Institutional Commitment, Feasibility & Implementability Efficiency & Effectiveness

  10. Relevance & Quality Enhancement • Relevance – responsiveness to the social demand & labour market needs • universities are encouraged to make their programs more demand driven • Also, Relevance to the Results to be Achieved (Performance Targets) • Proposed plan should also be in line with the updated University/Institution Corporate Plan

  11. Relevance & Quality Enhancement • Proposal should demonstrate how the proposed activities would improve the quality & relevance of programs • as a result provide graduates with knowledge, capabilities, skills and attitudes required by the labour market and the society • special emphasis on the employability of graduates of Arts & Humanities, Management and General Sciences • Proposal should demonstrate the commitment to submit a separate proposal for improving the quality & relevance of the EDPs, where applicable • Innovation and creativity in designing the activities is encouraged and will be highly appreciated

  12. Relevance & Quality Enhancement Corporate Plan Mechanism & Design of Activities Reviewers will look at Improvements in Teaching & Learning Process Improvements in Assessment Methods Performance Targets

  13. Institutional Commitment, Feasibility & Implementability • Institutional Commitment • Provision of Tangible Support to the Proposed Plan • Feasibility & Implementability • Availability of Physical & Human Resources • Availability of Required Conditions • Realistic Time Schedules • Some Examples of Hindering Factors • Unrealistic and/or Over Ambitious Targets • Over Optimistic Assumptions • Inadequate Number of Qualified & Experienced Staff to carry out the project activities • Other Limitations due to external factors • etc.

  14. Institutional Commitment, Feasibility & Implementability Project Planning Access to Data & Information Space to carry out activities Reviewers will look at Physical & Human Resources Proposed Budget Activities & Activity Plan Performance Targets

  15. Efficiency & Effectiveness • Efficiency – Relationship between Input & Process • shows the degree of the proposed plan’s frugality in using resources • Effectiveness – Relationship between Process & output • shows the results of a process using specified resources to achieve the objectives • Proposed Budget should be based on Solid Rationale • efficient and effective use of proposed investment as well as the existing resources to achieve the objectives • Beneficiary Population & Performance Targets would also demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed plan

  16. Efficiency & Effectiveness Improvement Plan – Mechanism & Design of Activities Utilization/Sharing of Resources Reviewers will look at Beneficiary Population Performance Indicators

  17. Questions !

More Related