SW-VirCamp Partner Meeting

1. SW-VirCampPartner Meeting VITERO 5 March 2009 12:30 – 15:30

2. Agenda 1. Amendments of resource plan (Work Packages) and budget Principles for amendments 2. Yearly budget – principles 3. Other amendments 4. We ask the Partner meeting to give autority to the Steering Committee to decide the amendments of the resource plan and the yearly budget according to the principles presented in the meeting. 5.   WPL's expectations for work from the other partners.       Each WPL present concrete expectations of work and cooperation the partners (2 minutes each) 6. The partners experience with the project till now.      7.  E-pedagogy course for teachers in HEI (only 2 applicants) 8. Other aspects to discuss?

3. 1. Amendments of resoursce plan/budget Workpackage 4: • Deliverable 4.3 Project budget is: A transparent yearly budget, including accountability requirements, money transfer regulations etc. will be defined and presented to partners.

4. What have been done: • Money transfer regulations are set out in the consortium agreement and by the different forms for requesting reimbursement from HiB. • All the forms are available at www.vircamp.net

5. What needs to be done: • Make a suggestion for revision of the resource plans set out for each work package in the application. • We suggest that the revised resource plan will be in accordance with the budget plan. • Project leader will allocate the additional working days per partner to the different work packages and then send the suggestion to the WP leaders for feedback. • Project leader will make a division of the working days per year for each workpackage and this will be the background for setting up the yearly budget.

6. Yearly budget • The transparent yearly budget will be developed shortly. The yearly budget will take into consideration the discrepancy between the meeting plan and the budget plan for the breakdown of travel and subsistence costs per partner. • The yearly budget will also take into consideration the discrepancy between the resource plans and the budget plan for the number of working days for staff categories manager and researcher/teacher. • The consortium was made aware of both discrepancies in the kick-off meeting in Bergen October 2008.

7. Overview of discrepancies between the Resource plan and the budget plan

8. Q+R to Brussels • Management category • When planning our budget we added many workingdays for managers (staff category 1), because we believed that work related to management could be counted as category 1 even when it is done by academic teaching staff. We wonder if this understanding is correct or not? • As we have understood this: the planning work and project management done by the project leader and the other work package leaders should be calculated as staff category 1. When the same persons are doing content related work (like developing the curriculum plan etc) their working days will be calculated as staff category 2. • This is correct.

9. Question and response with Brussels • Q:During the process we might see that some partners might have more qualified staff to do a specific job than the one who was planned to do this. Can we shift tasks between partner institutions? • R:A shift in some minor partner tasks is acceptable with prior notification to the Agency.

10. Q + R Brussels • If we notice that we have calculated more working days for category 1 than needed, can this be transferred as working days for category 2 staff? • Yes, it is permitted but category 1 and category 2 are not the same staff. So the raising of the category 2 should be explained. Why does the project need more teachers (as the project has been selected with a work done by less teachers…

11. Overview of discrepancies between the Resource plan and the budget plan

12. Example INHOLLAND: • In the Resource plan in the application INHOLLAND has: 23 Management days, 30 Research/teacher days etc… • In the budget plan in the application: 26 Management days, 52 Reseach/teacher days etc… • Which means that when we are going to use the number of days in the budget there will be 3 more Management days and 22 more Research/Teacher days to add to the Work packages that INH is working with.

13. Example HiBO, ULHT, KHK: • This one is not so easy because in these cases there is 8 days less (category Researche/Teacher) in the budget plan than in the resource plan for each one of these partners. • This means that we have to reduce the number of days for these partners in the workpackages.

14. Suggestion • Project leader work out a new workplan for each partner/year, which will consider the workload expected from the partner in the different work packages and expected working days during the first and the second year of the project. • We suggest to make as less amendments as possible because of the administrative regulations from Brussel

15. Example WP1: In the resource plan for WP1 • All partners except for INH, UCM have only 1 Management day. • INH has 5 Management days and UCM has 5 Management days + 10 Administrative days. • From what we have understood after the project started this workpackage need more resourses. It is one of the most important workpackages in the project because it is important for how we plan a future international specialization. • So we need more time for this work.

16. Example of how we plan to amend the resource plan for WP1. • Suggestion: INH get 5 + 3 new Management days and 8 -10 new Research days • UCM get 5+1 more Management days (or maybe some more days should be added) • HiB has contributed already with many days to this WP1 (survey) and I suggest that HiB get 1+ 2 new Management days (should have been cat.2 staff). • Conclution: we add 14 – 16 days to WP1

17. 2. Yearly budget • A yearly budget will be made and based on the adjusted resource plan agreed upon by the SWSC.

18. Amendments in the budget • Subcontracting The Subconcontracting costs exceed the budget plan with 100 Euro • The contract with Lund University is on 6350 Euro

19. Meetings which is not included in the budget plan • Extra meeting for the Steering Committee for midway and final reporting: • one day in June 2009 in Mannheim in connection to the VIRCLASS Consortium Meeting • 2 days meeting to either before or after the last PM in Latvia. • Project leader meetings in Brussels – 3 meetings • The extra SWSC meetings must be notified to Brussels before they take place. • There is about 11000 Euro left from the kick off meeting which can be used for extra meeting.

20. Q+R to Brussels Q:Can we use the budget for travel costs for steering committee meetings to partners who cannot be funded by another meeting in our project? (P2, P3) R: If additional meetings incurring travel and subsistence costs will be necessary, an amendment is necessary to cover these meetings and should be explained in the request. The Agency will then give feedback whether this is acceptable or not.

21. Administrative costs which is not in the budget • Travel costs for the Project administration at HiB • When Ranveig and Lillian participate in SWSC meetings or SWPM.

22. Q+R to Brussels Q:Can we allocate staff and travel costs to the secretariat at HiB for SWSC meetings? • Staff of official partner organisations is eligible for travel/subsistence costs within the project. If there is need to include more staff for a specific meeting, this is possible provided that the costs can be covered by the available funds in the budget for travel/subsistence.

23. Other costs • We might need more money for advertisements and pamphlets In the budget we have 3200 Euro Which we can exceed with 10% or 5000 Euro (GA §1.3.4; Handbook §1.6.3)

24. 3. Other amendments • Time schedule for WP1 will be more than 3 months as planned • Change in subcontractors • WP7 – will be more than 12 months as planned. • Have to start to plan which conferences to attend and send in abstracts for conferences in 2009 • Have to plan what article we are going to write in which journal

25. Q+R to Brussels • Extension of work related to specific work packages Q: We can see that the workload and time schedule for WP1 has to be expanded. To fulfill the expected outcomes will take more time than we expected when the application was written. Do we have to make the commission aware of this delay when we expect the work to be fulfilled by halfway report? R: Any deviations in the implementation of the work packages compared to the original planning should be reported to the Agency. The appropriate place to do so is the Interim/Final Report. • If, however, the deviations are of major importance having an impact on the objectives/outcomes of the project/work packages, then these changes should be subject of a prior official amendment request to be approved by the Agency. This also applies if there are any budgetary implications which go beyond the thresholds of allowed budgetary re-allocations.

26. 4. Suggestion for desicion • The Partner meeting give permission to the Steering Committee to decide upon the resource plan and the yearly budgets according to the principles stated in this presentation, and the regulations from EACEA. After the amended resource plan has been prestented to the partners by e-mail and with a specific deadline for comments.

27. 5. Short report about expectations regarding the workpackages • WP 1: /Remmelt Veenkamp • - survey • - investigating the data • - analysis • - additional information • - concept report • - feedback • - administrative part of WP1

28. Work Package 2/ Klas-Göran Olsson

29. WP3 /Anne Karin LarsenParticipation in Workshop • 12 participants in the workshop in Bergen in March • Preparing screen lectures • Preparing triggers • Preparing the case for the CW module

30. Participants

31. Madrid meeting25 – 27 May 2009 • Most of the trigger production is ready • Mainly production of the case • Participants: 9 persons + Complutense: • P1, 2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,12

32. Final production • All digital learning material November 2009

33. WP4/ Anne Karin Larsen Reimbursement • Please send the reimbursement for travel costs from the Mannheim meeting within 2 weeks after the meeting • Hosting partners for meetings please send the reimbursement for the meetings (within a month after the meeting) • All partners please send the requested paper for actual staff costs for all involved in the project from your institution

34. Reimbursement • Please send the reimbursement form for the period 1.10 – 31.12.2008 with the correct workingdays related to staff category and WP (consult the application or GA with annex)

35. Consortium Agreement • We have received a signed agreement from: • Jönköping Missing: Miguel Torga, Lusofona, • Kempen • Inholland • Mittweida • Liepaja • Bodø • Swansea • Mannheim • Complutense

36. WPLeaders • Please send report from your last meetings to the Project leader. • The reports will be presented at the website

37. To all partners • Please do your best to be active and fullfill the tasks you are expected to do and to participate in meetings. • Please help the workpackage leader to fulfill the expected deliverables

38. Send information to our website • Please send information you want to add to our website • Give suggestions for changes • Start discussions about how does it look and how does it work – A VIRTUAL CAMPUS for SOCIAL WORK

39. WHO IS GOING TO DO WHAT (WP6) Andres Astray

40. WHO IS GOING TO DO WHAT (wp7) Andres Astray

41. 6. Partner experience till now? • Please express how you think about the project • The workload? • What can you achieve from it?

42. 7. E-pedagogy course in VIRCLASS • This is an offer to partner institutions to develop the digital e-teaching competence among staff members. • It is important for our future work that more teacher become skilled e-teachers • Only Mannheim and Kempen has applied • Extended open call till 13 March

43. Thank you! • Thank you for your contribution to our common goal for an international specialisation in social work within and outside a Virtual Campus