|
Activities / results |
Description |
Partners |
Deliverable |
|
WP1 - General project management |
EADTU coordinates the project and coaches the participants towards the stated deliverables. EADTU is responsible for the coordination and the monitoring of OEII on a day-to-day basis concerning all activities to be carried out. This workpackage will ensure that deadlines are met and deliverables are produced in accordance with the contract, the project timetable, the quality framework and the budget limitations. All partners will be involved in a substantial way in the different workpackages. For each workpackage, a workpackage leader is appointed. EADTU will stimulate all partners to take up their own role, and will foster collaboration among partners and will be the place to turn to, for partners, should they encounter any problems (conflict management). The project consortium with the different partners, will meet on a regular basis to guarantee correct fulfilment of the OEII project tasks and objectives. In between, the project consortium will also communicate electronically, in regular intervals. Communication & collaboration are supported by various (conferencing) tools (discussion forums, project support tools, audio, video & computer conferencing). The management workpackage will contribute to the timely delivery of expected results. After agreement on concrete terms of tasks and timing during the kick-off meeting, each partner will sign the Partner Agreement with the coordinator, detailing ones project commitment, responsibilities and contractual obligations including
IPR organisation, and specifying under which conditions the grant share is paid. EADTU will also take care of the relations with and the reporting to the European Commission with regard to this project. EADTU will also organise and chair the all-partners meetings, and take care of the general management of other meetings.
Administratively, EADTU ensures the general project management with regard to financial administration, monitoring & reporting. |
-
|
|
|
WP 2 - Cross-comparison of university interfacing models and assessment of market
receptiveness |
In this workpackage, university entrepreneurship, university interfacing, and university receptiveness, as regards the identification, development and incubation of internal or market-oriented educational initiatives, are assessed. Many factors contribute to universities being successful with new educational initiatives: course offering, pricing, openness, social and professional regional embedding, market conditions, access to finance, educational R&D, constellation of the local regulatory framework, entrepreneurial capabilities and culture, intermediaries, stakeholder cooperation, and knowledge-transfer mechanisms. Partners describe the constellation of above mentioned factors and the universities strategy of dealing with these developments.
Partners also compare their own university-market interface model with the practices of notably interesting domestic universities. Each partner may systemise its approach by stratifying the research and analyses i.e., dealing with the strategic level (i.e., governing board), the tactic level (i.e., faculty management), and the operational level (i.e., educational staff). In charting the different practices, partners perform literature study, expert interviews, and convene (the first run) of local workshop sessions with stakeholders. The whole exercise cumulates up to individual country reports, in relation to country literature and the country stakeholders/experts. All the individual country reports are then successively compared in a European perspective, and
assessed on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. A compendium with extracted best practise (interface) models will result. Each university successively reviews the European best practice model(s) and identifies-back, local opportunities for the implementation of models which accelerate market requirements’ infusion, the identification of new (internal or external) educational initiatives, and the associated process of university incubation. |
-
|
|
|
WP 3 - Flexible interface models and pre-incubation of educational initiatives |
The results from workpackage 2 on university interfacing models & assessment of market receptiveness, is used as an input for a second run of consultation meetings with regional (professional) stakeholders. The meetings serve four objectives: (1) validation of a next generation model for the management of educational innovation in the region, (2) exploration and development of a stakeholder portfolio for educational innovation, (3) identification and first description of potentially new educational pilots, and (4) identification of accelerators and
multipliers for these pilots. The workshops are real twinning sessions with internal and external professional invitees & intermediaries. They are organised with the objective to: (1) validate prior WP2 results, (2) select viable models which can be promoted regionally, (3) perform assessment of possibilities for pre-incubation of new educational programmes, projects, courses and services. The twinning workshops will convene: stratified university management, professional institutions, enterprises, training and branch organisations, educational intermediaries, and other stakeholders. The educational, professional & market stakeholders will assess the present & future (regional) market needs, along with the anticipated alignment of educational offers. A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Strengths (SWOT) analysis is performed on the educational opportunities that were identified. The outputs of this WP are: (1a) a preferred (regional) interfacing model for the sustained organisation of educational innovation with stakeholders, including matters of (de)centralisation, staffing, administration, technology & delivery, (1b) strategies for sustained (external) stakeholder network management, and (3) a shortlist of matching (new/emerging/experimental) educational pilots, for WP4 assessment. |
-
|
|
|
WP 4 - Assessing the incubation of versatile advancement pilots |
In this workpackage, actual empirical insight is generated into the interfacing process that universities maintain (or currently develop) with internal and external parties by means of the assessment of several running, emerging and small-scale (new) experimental pilots. The objective is to observe how the current incubation model at the university functions and what contributes or hinders the incubation of new initiatives, given the context of the university organisation. Versatile advancement pilots provide for more insight into the success and failure factors of educational incubation, in relation to the different process owners, such as: mainstream students, unemployed professionals, adult learners, workplace learners, and other. Pilots, selected in this workpackage, have a rich stakeholder context, as to encompass sufficient experimentation, research and evaluation opportunities. The Pilots are described by different stages, such as conceptualisation, initiation, incubation phases (and perhaps commercialisation), to provide insight as to what elements are actually successful, and may be applied more generic. The selected pilots in this WP, originate from various partners within the OEII Consortium. They represent educational opportunities induced by internal and external stimuli, and subscribe to a Commercial Market - or an Open Educational Resources (OER) philosophy. Next to the contemporary pilots, the workpackage also understands the necessity of including pilot failures. Educational initiatives that failed are as important to the understanding of the incubation process as those that succeeded: maybe even more important. Accordingly, in this WP, also educational initiatives that were not successful, and did not make it, are included. The final outcomes: descriptions, findings and conclusions of the SWOT analyses/successes/failures of the various pilot projects, and a cross-over report with general conclusions and recommendations. |
-
|
|
|
WP 5 - Towards a sustainable university ecosystem for educational innovation |
This workpackage draws general conclusions from the different workpackages: assessment of university interfaces (WP2), model validation by consultation meetings with external stakeholders (WP3), and incubation pilots on new educational initiatives (WP4). All activities are assessed on their impact to universities’ system of educational innovation. Besides the organisation of universities, also the role of change agents, (internal and external) stakeholders, multipliers and accelerators, is evaluated. It is explicated what issues and processes have
hindered and/or promoted the knowledge transfer process between (or inside) different parties, and what solutions can be formulated, or opportunities taken advantage of, to improve the situation. Important recommendations to improve the organisational interfaces are formulated, and appropriate motivation and reward mechanisms for academics and accelerators are suggested. Recommendations are formulated on how universities should design an organisational interface, and how they can instantiate the generic design to their own environment. In doing so, the innovative capacity of the participating universities can be levered, whether they are traditional universities, blended model universities or distance universities. A preferred educational (innovation) chain is formulated, which focuses on targeted areas of growth and emerging markets. In addition, links between partner universities are exploited. Educational opportunities which have been identified on the local level, and currently fall outside the university scope, could be taken up in conjunction with other partners from Europe which do possess the right expertise. It will be identified as to where possible opportunities lie, and what blend of resources is to take place, to fill such niche. The final product of this workpackage is the design of a sustainable interface for educational innovation and a general code of conduct for those involved. |
-
|
|
|
WP 6 - Stratified policy recommendations |
Based on the conclusions of this project, policy recommendations will be formulated for policy makers on different levels. Difficulties encountered in the project as to the hindering of success, will be analysed and assessed in the framework of policy recommendations as to where policy is lacking or inadequate. Blank spots will be identified as to where new policy such as social, legal or funding policy would make a different for a more benign environment for educational innovation. The package differentiates between the parties to whom the policy recommendations are meant for: university management, social partners, foundations, associations, regional governments, national governments, and European policy makers. Public authorities, education and training providers, students, social partners, as well as regional and local actors must join hands in contributing to the design of more educational innovation and training policies. Against the background of the financial crisis, educational innovation is especially important as to provide for flexicurity. Extending social protection with
favourable social regulations and deductions, would be beneficial for adults taking education and training.
Facilitating training and retraining opportunities for professionals and the unemployed, would enhance their professional chances and mobility on the labour market. It would help them to remain productive. Such policy schemes would especially support the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups. A stronger governance of innovation and improved regulation of the financial system for stimulating 'eduvation' is needed.
Methodologically, the project will start with a survey among policy stakeholders of the universities, as to identify what they regard to be the success factors and/or hurdles and what (policy) domains should receive additional attention during the project. A joint European policy seminar will convene stakeholders of all partner countries, including the European Commission. |
-
|
|
|
WP 7 - Dissemination |
To obtain early receptiveness, the partnership will immediately start disseminating project start-up, progress and end-results, to regional stakeholders, including public, professional networks and policy advisors. A promotional Board inside the project is established to devise and manage the dissemination strategy. All partners have a considerable expertise in the dissemination of large scale projects at regional, national and European levels through developing & maintaining project websites, publicity materials, organising workshops
and media coverage, presenting at conferences and publishing. All partners utilise also their (regional) networks of professional contacts, to effectuate the impact. Most communication is in EN, except for local communication which will preferably be in the native language best attributing to local policy and strategy bodies.
The dissemination potential is extremely broad. Information will generally be spread through project websites, newsletters, mailing lists, press releases, news announcements, local university press clippings, professional clusters, networks and stakeholder communities, the Chamber's of Commerce, newsgroups, local fairs, professional workshops and educational events, professional networks (local, regional, European), Web2.0 media outlets, conference abstracts, (reviewed) papers submissions, project references in scientific papers, Bachelor, Master and Dissertation studies, popular articles, technical reports, editorials and book chapters, professional promotional materials, glossy folders, leaflets and/or brochures, university-business forums, regional seminars, and European networks and conferences.
The EADTU has (now) grown to become an association of 29 national members representing 24 European countries. Mailings through extensive databases, is one of the core activities of EADTU. The vast array of contacts in the EADTU database will be applied, including available and customised distribution lists. |
-
|
|
|
WP 8 - Exploitation of results |
An all-inclusive 'valorisation and exploitation' plan is developed by the partners, enabling receptiveness of the community and early project involvement. Inclusive strategies are formulated for involvement of associates, observers or professional participants, increasing the impact of spill-over and post-project valorisation. The strategy will be established in close relation to the dissemination activities, and the successive workshops planned on the local and European level.
Professionals, already part of OEII, will systematically address and valorise their contacts with academia & intermediaries, training organisations, vocational/professional networks, educational market entrepreneurs, market multipliers & accelerators, policy and funding bodies, and university management and (educational) research departments. A final exploitation report will incorporate all the results and recommendations from both the project's evaluation and dissemination. The report will provide the basis for further post-project valorisation
and the allocation of associated resources. The project deliverables such as interface models and recommendations will become available during the course of the project, so that they will be replicable and usable by others.
The exploitation report will continuously be updated throughout the project, with the lessons that are learned
on the impact of applied valorisation tactics during the project. The final exploitation report will (also) include the assessment of new valorisation strategies. A final valorisation & exploitation event will be organised to validate existing strategies and obtain new ones. The feasibility of all post-project valorisation opportunities will be assessed by this final exploitation event. |
-
|
|
|
WP 9 - Quality Assurance |
The organogram of the OEII project:
(1) Consortium Members
(2) Quality Board
(3) Steering/Advisory Board
(1) The Consortium members are all the partners taking part in the OEII project (informally, including also associate members, observers, and professional interestees)
(2) The Quality Board is a subset of project members. It convenes to prepare the evaluation procedure and set-up the indicators, for preparing the interim report, and for discussing the final evaluation report. The activities of the Quality Board consist of devising the quality assurance manual, (ongoing) quality management, monitoring and control, updating the quality assurance manual, and intermediate & final evaluation. The quality management manual is to ensure that monitoring of the project is performed adequately and accurately. It identifies procedures, criteria and resources for monitoring the project. It also deals with the evaluation of the progress of the project, associated risk, change and issue management, and with internal and/or external
evaluation of the deliverables. The Quality Board ensures that the project remains on track with scheduled deliverables, and remains within budget. Project status reports are generated to display progress and generate recommendations.
(3) The Steering Board is composed of high-end stakeholders, individuals with leading experience and expertise in the domain of ICT, education & market entrance. The committee acts as an Advisory to the project. It provides recommendations and expert steering advice to the project and its members. EADTU will meet several times with this external Board so as to discuss the progress of the project and its products, and learn about new insights.
Considering the strategic character of this Board, meetings are less frequent than the regular all-partner Consortium meetings. The Steering Board identifies cross-valorisation opportunities and blends with existing projects in the field, herewith improving its impact. |
-
|
|