Archivi tag: Criteri di selezione

Criteri di valutazione progetti di Cooperazione Cultura Europa Creativa

Criteri di valutazione progetti di Cooperazione Cultura Europa Creativa BANDO IN SCADENZA 7 ottobre 2015

Nel bando in scadenza 2015 i criteri di valutazione (vedi Guidelines p. 13-15) sono stati modificati, in particolare il peso del parametro relevance è diminuito a 30/100.

Eligible applications will be assessed on the basis of the following criteria:

Criteria Definition Maximum points
1. Relevance Does the application contribute to the objectives and priorities of the scheme? 30
2. Quality of the content and activities How is the project implemented? 30
3. Communication and dissemination What is the project’s approach to communicating its activities and to sharing knowledge and experiences with the sector and across borders? 20
4. Quality of the partnership What is the quality of the partnership in terms of effective implementation and sustainability? 20
  1. Relevance (30)

This criterion evaluates how the project will contribute, on the basis of the programme priorities referred to in section 2 of these guidelines, to reinforcing the sector’s professionalization and capacity to operate trans-nationally and internationally, to promoting transnational circulation of cultural and creative works and mobility of artists, to reaching new and enlarged audiences and to improving access to cultural and creative works. To this end, the project should include a substantiated strategy to implement the programme priority(ies)  spelt out in section 2, answering the following questions:

  • How relevant is the project’s strategy to implement one or more of the following priorities considered as instrumental to the achievement of the objectives of the Sub-programme:
    • Transnational mobility of artists and professionals and/or transnational circulation of cultural and creative works
    • Audience development
    • Capacity building in view of adapting to the digital shift and encouraging the use of digital technologies
    • Capacity building in view of enhancing business skills
    • Capacity building in view of acquiring new skills and improving employability
  • How convincing, clearly defined and innovative are the strategies proposed to achieve the above priority(ies) that the project seeks to implement?
  • To what extent is the project aiming at producing results which will go beyond the sole interest of the partners and direct participants and have potential long-term impacts?
  • To what extent is the project complementary to cultural actions implemented at national, regional or local level?
  1. Quality of the content and activities (30)

This criterion evaluates how the project will be implemented in practice (quality of the activities and the deliverables, the experience of the staff in charge of the project and working arrangements).

  • How concrete and well defined are the activities to be implemented in the framework of the project?
  • How clearly related are the objectives and activities of the project to the identified needs of the target groups?
  • Are there concrete and well defined outputs (deliverables) and how appropriate are they towards the overall objectives of the project?
  • Is a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the results foreseen and how clear and appropriate is it?
  • How relevant is the experience of the team taking part in the project, for example in terms of organisational skills, experience and track record in the cultural and creative sectors, communication and language skills? To this purpose, the CVs of the persons responsible for the submitted project within the applicant organisation and each partner institution will be assessed.
  • How appropriate is the allocation of the budget and human resources to the activities undertaken in the framework of the project?
  • How clear and realistic is the time-table for implementing the project activities?
  1. Communication and dissemination (20)

This criterion evaluates the project’s approach to communicating its activities and results and to sharing knowledge and experiences with the sector and across borders. The aim is to maximise the impact of the project results by making them available as widely as possible at local, regional, national and European levels, so that they have a reach beyond those directly involved in the project and an impact beyond the project’s lifetime.

  • How clear and appropriate is the strategy to communicate on the activities of the partners’ network, including the objectives, target groups, tools[1], channels[2], media, impact and timeline?
  • How will EU support be made visible throughout the duration of the project and beyond and contribute to a positive image of the EU?
  • How and to whom will the experience and knowledge acquired through the project be disseminated at local, regional, national and/or European level, including beyond the duration of the project?
  1. Quality of the partnership (20)

This criterion evaluates the extent to which the general organisation and co-ordination of the project will ensure the effective implementation of the activities and will contribute to their sustainability.

  • How is the partnership defined and to what extent does it ensure a strong involvement of all partners and a clear division of tasks between them?
  • How will the partnership be made to last beyond the duration of the project?
  • To what extent does the partnership go beyond the organisations’ direct geographical neighbours and draw partners from a diverse geographical range of participating countries?
  • Only for projects involving partnership with organisation(s) established in those countries referred to under points 2, 4 and 5 of section 6.1 of these guidelines: To what extent does the partnership with operators from outside the EU reflect the concept of the role of culture in the EU’s external relations, as spelt out in the European Agenda for Culture?

[1] Examples of “tools” are publications, promotional material: leaflets, posters, gadgets, audio-visual material, newsletters, data bases, etc.

[2] Examples of “channels” include internet, social media (Facebook, Twitter, Youtube), events: conferences, seminars, workshops, etc.

Se sei interessato a ripresentare un progetto di cooperazione cultura non approvato, leggi questa pagina.

Articolo contenuto sul sito Autore © Leonardo Evangelista.  Vedi Informativa privacy, cookie policy, copyright e limitazione responsabilità.

La valutazione dei progetti europei

Questo sito è stato trasferito all’indirizzo


Estrema variabilità nei criteri di selezione (KA1)

Estrema variabilità nei criteri di selezione (KA1 di Erasmus+)

Su LinkedIn c’è un gruppo di discussione di agenzie che hanno presentato progetti di mobilità K1 sul bando Erasmus+. Uno dei partecipanti ha pubblicato un post (sul mio pc appare a questo indirizzo) dove spiega come lo stesso progetto, presentato da soggetti simili in paesi diversi, abbia ottenuto dalle diverse Agenzie Nazionali una rosa di punteggi che va da 92/100 a 42/100. Riporto il post:

 For a group of relatively similar organisations across Europe we made a template application form, in close cooperation with managers from these organisations (we even met IRL to draft this template). Most of them got granted, some not. However, the grades from the applications ranged between 92 in one country to 41 in another. How is this possible? Its the same application, its almost the same organisation… ?


in two evaluations (both of granted applications) it was mentioned that a weak point of the application was commercial nature of the course provider. Regardless if we are for profit or not for profit, is this a criteria for grading/ evaluating? Or is it just some sort of prejudice of evaluators that commercial is bad and non commercial is good? But it worries me that such things have been taken into account in the evaluation process, as we were told we are in an open market, where only the quality matters.

Entrambe le cose sono assai poco rassicuranti.