1 / 11

CDO-Net : Comments on the evaluation report from Brussels

CDO-Net : Comments on the evaluation report from Brussels. Score reached: 53 out of 100 (67 required for financing). Critics in details: Existence of LLL process is not clear Too much focused on technical aspects No external quality assurance evaluation process.

fitzgerald-benjamin
Download Presentation

CDO-Net : Comments on the evaluation report from Brussels

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. CDO-Net: Comments on the evaluation report from Brussels EUE-Net Brasov 2008

  2. Score reached: 53 out of 100 (67 required for financing) EUE-Net Brasov 2008

  3. Critics in details: • Existence of LLL process is not clear • Too much focused on technical aspects • No external quality assurance evaluation process EUE-Net Brasov 2008

  4. Too little research about existing services in the field • Lack of extension beyond the technical level • Seams to be limited to the implementation of a search platform EUE-Net Brasov 2008

  5. The whole project is not strictly part of the specific area of University - Enterprise co-operation • Involvement of enterprises in the projects output is not clear • Role of some partners has not be described detailed enough EUE-Net Brasov 2008

  6. The whole application appeared as a job-data base to much focused on technical details missing the LLL component • Unbalanced distribution of budget among the partners EUE-Net Brasov 2008

  7. Not much is said about the dissemination material • The positive aspects are not in the heart of the Erasmus co-operation between universities and enterprises. The point concerning the “catalogue of quality criteria” could be interesting and could enter in the preoccupation of the LLP (?) EUE-Net Brasov 2008

  8. Positive aspects: • Relatively well described solution of the existing problems • The proposal is in fact well focused on the solution EUE-Net Brasov 2008

  9. Foreseen results and objectives are well described • The methodology is presented with many details referring to already tested experiments EUE-Net Brasov 2008

  10. The partnership offers a broad European implementation (8 counties from N, S, W and E-Europe) which will favour dissemination of results • The European dimension is clear! EUE-Net Brasov 2008

  11. Conclusion of the evaluation report: • The consortium could be considered as correct in regard to the project... • Not properly adequate in regard to the Erasmus co-operation between Universities and Enterprise framework and the general LLP framework. EUE-Net Brasov 2008

More Related