Quality Assurance main tools for FAME

Some of the most important tools and methods that the Quality Assurance process is implementing for the FAME project are quicikly presented. The objective is to ensure the high quality of the project outputs and outcomes and at the same time to keep in mind and in practice a light approach:

• Active participative process
• Monitoring dashboard – collaborative & online Structure of the dashboard
• Quality Control at the Transnational Partner Meetings
• Quality evaluation of the project deliverables by the non-university partners
• Student and Family workhops

1- Active participative process

An active participative process will be encouraged in every type of activities for the FAME project between the partners and as well with the stakeholders involved in the various phases of the project.
This approach is part of the quality assurance system and is expected to reinforce the evaluation processes.

In addition to the collaborative and on-line tools (web-conferences with sharing screen and applications facility; website with on-the-fly content presentation depending on user’s access rights or type; on-line forms and feedback systems; on-line repository system based on user’s rights; ...), the face-to-face meeting will also be structured to reinforce this active participation of the partners and to make contributions, inputs and feedbacks emerge as early as possible.

For instance, the partner meetings, instead of being often a series of monolog presentation (where after a few ones, participants get tired and not receptive and even less interactive) will be structured to benefit of:

• The fresh morning session for a short setting-up the scene presentation and then a series of brainstorming and decision-making sessions (based as well on background documents provided upstream).
• A deployment of a series of bilateral and parallel workshops in the afternoon with direct hands-on session for the participants. These afternoon sessions will be mostly workshops of small groups of people run in parallel, moderated/animated by one leading partner and with the other partners being obliged to test, make hand-on contribution or provide answers directly linked to their own context and actions in the project. For instance, in the parallel sessions at the kick-off meeting, it is planned to have the following sessions:

• Dashboard leading activities validation (each partner in charge of a module/section will review and amend the tasks he/she oversees in the project in bilateral with the quality assurance manager), this empowers the partner and make him/her familiar with the on- line dashboard tool.
• Website hands-on session: to familiarise the representative of a partner organisation with the structure of the website, the attached on-line tools (repository, feed-back forms), the different types of users, and on how to log in and manage their user profile, on how to create a web article or on how to upload content in the dynamic document repository.
• Web-conference on-line tools: how to connect to a web-conference (login, phone or computer audio choice); the integrated chat; how to share screen; how to share applications and presentations; how to switch microphone on/off; etc.
• The e-learning framework and template: their structure; how to use them; what are the expected elements from the partners in terms of content and quiz elements, etc.
• The certification approach: presentation of the context based on initial/previous skill card framework elements, but to get the partners identifying/reflecting their own context and to prepare common brainstorming and discussion on the certification process at more active and integrated level.
  
  These are examples for the bilateral workshops. It is envisaged that each bilateral/small group workshop last about 1h maximum. The partners will be rotated between workshops. The workshops are planned for an afternoon, with a quick wrap-up session at the end to prepare the following day or to summarise findings and prepare the follow-up action plan if it is at the end of a partner meeting.

2- Monitoring dashboard – collaborative & online Structure of the dashboard

• Completion of the first version – ready for continuous monitoring and update for the 2nd partner meeting in Brussels. Update and discussion on the problematic elements on at least 2-month basis.
• Practical implementation of this type of dashboard have prooved been useful to the coordination team and to the partners in the INSIST and in the TRUST-Me projects. 

3- Quality Control at the Transnational Partner Meetings

The Quality Management issues are obligatory elements of agendas for all the 5 Transnational Partner Meetings.
At least, 1-hour discussion should be planned for 2 kind of topics:

• Quality management issues related to the implementation of the project
• Quality management issues related to the development of the results/deliverables

The Quality Management issues are also recommended parts of the web-meetings organised on 1-month basis for checking the performance of the partners between web- or personal meetings, and for evaluating the status of the Intellectual Outputs.

Meeting feedback forms are available:

     http://www.fame-programme.eu/news-events/feedback/results-feedback-budapest-2017

     http://www.fame-programme.eu/news-events/feedback/results-feedback-leeds-2017

     http://www.fame-programme.eu/news-events/feedback/results-training-leeds-2017

     http://www.fame-programme.eu/news-events/feedback/results-feedback-brussels-2017

4- Quality evaluation of the project deliverables by the non-university partners

Expert evaluations of the deliverables – first the intellectual outputs – by the non-educational partners (or self-evaluation by the responsible partners of the outputs) with comments, remarks, suggestions for the finalisation.
The deliverables should be reviewed along the “6C’s” methodology, showing directions needing attention. It is then followed by recommendations, if necessary.
The 6 viewpoints for evaluation in case of the 6 C’s methodology are: Complete, Clear, Concise, Consistent, Correct and Credible. The basis for the comparison is the project proposal. The responsible people should score from 1-5 and provide a short written summary in case of all the 6 viewpoints, if needed making suggestion for improvement.

Scoring in case of the 6C’s methodology
Scores must be in the range 1-5. Half marks may be given.
Evaluators will be asked to score proposals as they were submitted, rather than on their potential if certain changes were to be made.
When an evaluator identifies significant shortcomings, he or she must reflect this by awarding a lower score for the criterion concerned. Interpretation of the scores:

• 0 - Not relevant. The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.
• 1 - Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.
• 2 - Fair. The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses.
• 3 - Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present.
• 4 - Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present.
• 5- Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion. Any shortcomings are minor.

5- Student and Family workhops

Main steps of the Quality Assurance process collect various types of information. These information are kept anonymous for the confidential business part if needed:

• Depending on the needs identified via the research results and via the local/national context, various quiz and questionnaires can be implemented on-line via the FAME website: before, during and after the workshops (with user accounts for each participant when needed to ensure continuity of the learning path and validation of outcomes). 
• Various questionnaires and data collection can be implemented if relevant (and to the benefit of the learners as key focus), such as:
  • Pre-requisite skills and knowledge quiz; 
  • Motivations/expectation of the participant
  • A feedback questionnaire by the trainees/participants, in addition to debriefing moments can take place after each training session.
  • An assessment questionnaire by the teachers/trainers
  • In addition, depending on the topics, some on-line assessemnt, exercices or collaborative/participative activities can take place.
• Depending on results, cross analysis can be added between the modules and contexts.
• The results of the Student workshops will be processed to improve the content and delivery modes before the Business Family workshops.