EQUAL - Final report - eng - navreme

EVALUATION OF CIP EQUAL TRANSNATIONAL CO-OPERATION PRINCIPLE
MoLSA, MSSF Pwc and MoLSA, ECDB DP and www DP individual DP. Further the
arrangement of the projects on www – it is not true that it is according to the
organisation’s name – it is classified into the thematic areas primarily, further there is
a possibility of full text search)
We have modified the text in the given chapter within the sense of this comment.
While the sites of the organisations themselves where the given project was
mentioned were up-to-date, the structure of these sites and the depth and quality of
the information were obviously left completely upon the activity of the given
organisations; for this reason the reliability and, in particular the communicative
value of the sites (with regard to the assignment of the evaluation) differed
considerably and moreover, it is not sure whether the sites will remain accessible and
up-to-date also after the projects’ termination. In case of the other mentioned places
where the information on the projects is mentioned, the organisations did not have a
direct possibility to update the information, but this was done vicariously. The
organisations complained that in some cases they had had to ask for updating of the
data repeatedly, however in most of the cases they were not interested in
administration of these systems at all. We have directed the note about updating and
authorship at an ordinary user, who would be searching in these systems for the
information on the projects, and for whom the principle of administration and
responsibility for these systems might not be clear at all.
5) It is not possible to find in the reports an answer to the questions of the type Which
outputs / activities were implemented thanks to the transnational cooperation (topics
2 and 3). We would like to ask for specification of solution of these questions.
The answers to the questions from topics 2 and 3 are mentioned at the following
places: in the findings from the questionnaire investigation, which largely answered
the very questions identified in the assignment of topics 2 and 3 and, of course, of
others (see e.g. graph in Chapter 4.2 where the comparison of the activities, their
frequency and the added value is mentioned), and above all, they are mentioned in
Chapter 5.3, which expresses to the individual activities and outputs in great details.
Moreover, we have put more precisely the identification of the works carried out in
Chapter 6.5 in such a way that it might be clear to a reader.
6) To put more precisely the heading of Chapter 5 – the evaluation themes from the
tender documentation are not concerned …it is confusing in this way
We have changed the heading of the chapter. In chapter 5 we mention the findings
according to the topics we have identified as the central ones. De facto, these topics
copy the management cycle of the projects, and thus they are not formulated
according to the tender documentation, but they come out from this assignment at
the same time. The outline of the evaluation themes according to the original
assignment is mentioned only in the following chapter. To put it more precisely, this
information is mentioned at the beginning of Chapter 5.
7) We would like to have the Final Report “transparent” from the content point of view
in the sense of the tender documentation. In the Final Report it should be clear (at
least in the form of a reference) where it is possible to find the information according
to the structure of the tender documentation – solution of the individual topics, tasks
and answers to the evaluation questions.
We have respected this wish in full, even thought we have offered also different
Navreme Boheme, s.r.o. 232