1 / 24

Mid term review : unsatisfactory project

Mid term review : unsatisfactory project. direct recommendations i – ix revision of deliverables period 1 & 2 ,within 3 months reduce scope: (a) users, (b) themes, (c) Russian version, (d) field; SIA/IA more active approach: websites, dissemination, cooperation with other projects.

curran-peters
Download Presentation

Mid term review : unsatisfactory project

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. Mid term review : unsatisfactory project • direct recommendations i – ix • revision of deliverables period 1 & 2 ,within 3 months • reduce scope: (a) users, (b) themes, (c) Russian version, (d) field; SIA/IA • more active approach: websites, dissemination, cooperation with other projects Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008

  2. Reduced scope • Environmental, land use and social impacts, as in original DoW – 12 chapters • Focus on the primary user, EC officer, maybe sectoral issues • Russian version can be reduced variant • SIA retained Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008

  3. (i) A revised DOW • done, contains points i-vi and viii • contains revised budget distribution identical to latest CPF • has more graphs on methodology, but should be looked over for consistency and: is the main idea/potential communicated? Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008

  4. (ii) internal communication and management plan • project management group • panels for methodology and e-textbook • end-of-month meetings • collaborative spaces • chapter teams contribute to website and survey other projects Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008

  5. (iii) strenghtened advisory board • Carys Jones, Peter Groffman and Jorma Enkenberg as old members • new: Phoebe Koundouri (economist), Michael Chernet (JRC), EC staff?? • Advisory board actions in 2009 - when the revised draft chapters are uploaded early 2009, - attending Workshop 4 :‘editing the e-textbook’ preliminarily set for March 2009 in Brussels, group meeting and statement - in summer 2009 when the chapters are finalized and submitted for testing (see WP6) and then submitted for an external peer-review. According to their own decisions as to dividing the work, the advisory board will report to the project coordinator giving recommendations on the quality and orientation of the e-tool. Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008

  6. (iv) engaging stakeholders • through the e-LUP work process of contacting EC for information, material, opinions etc. • a stakeholder session at the extra Workshop in Brussels, March 2009 • training sessions as part of WP6 (months 42-44) • possibly, a launching event of the finalized tool • requisite: “profiling” of primary stakeholders • Cooperation with other projects who have done interviews etc. Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008

  7. Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008

  8. (vi) external & internal review • INTERNAL: Each chapter editor/coeditors from the project should evaluate at least the chapter assigned to her/him by a random ordering (DoW, p. ). A detailed critique statement structured through a short standard form is required from each reviewer. • EXTERNAL:A comprehensive external peer review will be implemented. Engaging seven expert reviewers is planned. • ALSO: Inviting contributions from other projects will give feedback on contents, ‘the chapter pages’ on the project website will stimulate internal feedback on contents. Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008

  9. (vii) Survey of related projects • a new WP2 report exists, the 1st version • about 50 pages, describes other projects and their relevance for e-LUP • but, a 2nd version is needed – a closer analysis of the related projects will be of great help in (a) tailoring the new e-LUP methodology, (b) selecting projects to be contacted, (c) conclusions on state of the art in SIA tools for our Chapter 3 ’Tools’. Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008

  10. (vii) Survey of related projects • The survey has the following aims: • review the EC rationale and perceived needs behind the calls issued in framework programmes for a batch of projects focused on SIA and SD. • review recent projects focused on integrative tools for land use related modelling, and impact assessment. • review recent projects on global change, environmental impacts and ecosystems. • review recent IA tools & concepts oriented projects, including institutional and economic sustainability scenarios. • also explore other topics, not obviously connected to SIA or SD. • short list projects relevant at chapter level (of the e-LUP textbook). Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008

  11. (viii) time chart / workplan Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008

  12. (ix) updated Period 2+ reports later today... Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008

  13. WP 6 Testing • testing in 5 jurisdictions, originally 3 • planning of questionnaires • external review and compilation of results Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008

  14. Website energized • updated • upsized • open and more engaging? Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008

  15. Updated pages, new pages materials downloadable outreach A new forum – run by chapter teams Better formulations

  16. Revised WP2 report, outline • main focus is on training and decision support, encompassing four main elements: (1) treatment of issues, (2) of policies, (3) of tools and finally (4) assessment support. • focus on e-learning, the added-value of which should be explored maximally (interactivity, multimedia). • a rigorous analytical framework, DPSIR-framework, SENSOR benchmark? Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008

  17. Revised WP3 report outline Meaningful integration of cases studies into the matrix should be guided by the Methodology The hierarchical chain ‘textbook – cases – models’ should be observed, but both cases and models also have stand-alone status e.g. on the e-tool side. Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008

  18. Conclusions • we think we have valuable case studies • we think the model visualisations will be useful • we know that the challenge is the QUALITY of the e-textbook/e-tool Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008

  19. Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008

  20. Thank you! Thank you! intense learning process

More Related