Evaluation of the Swiss Virtual Campus - Schweizerische ...

SVC Final Evaluation. Background Report Lepori and Probst
partners no longer
interested
retirement of key
people
missing integration
financial reasons
Figure 13. Risk factors
N = 79
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
very likely likely moderately likely not likely
In our sample, the risk of a close-down created by financial reasons is perceived most seriously
by the 2 nd series projects (7 out of 10 see it as very likely, 1 as likely), while it is estimated
lowest by the 1 st series projects (1 out of 14 very likely, 3 likely). In the 3 rd and 4 th series (both
maintenance and production), around half of the projects sees this possibility as very likely or
likely. Also the retirement of key people is perceived as the most serious risk factor by 2 nd series
projects (3 out of 10 very likely, 4 likely). This risk is perceived lowest by the 1 st (4 out of 14
likely/very likely) and 4 th series (8 out of 28). 11 out of the 19 projects stating that retirement of
key people is not likely to be a factor for closing down the project are from the 4 th series.
4.6 Final appreciation
The picture given by the respondents of our questionnaire looks, overall, very positive. Most
projects are used in regular activities, even if they have been developed some years ago, and
are expected to continue to be used. Collaboration with the CCSP is generally appreciated –
even if there are some cases where this collaboration does not exist or is rather limited. This
impression of varying degrees of collaboration was also perceived during the monitoring visits.
There are projects that have developed their own technical and didactical competences, while in
other cases the development of projects is done in very close interaction with the CCSP – in
extreme cases, the project leader is part of (or leader of) the CCSP. Even if this was not directly
a topic of the evaluation, one should also consider that a significant number of SVC projects
won international prizes and awards, including two winners of the MEDIDA Prix (2003 and
2006) and many participated in the final round of prizes like MEDIDA Prix, Multimedia Transfer
and EASA award.
The results from the questionnaires do not show many differences between projects in the
production and those in the maintenance phase. One difference that emerged was that
maintenance projects were used more often as – mandatory or optional – standalone courses
than those still in the production phase; this might be related to the larger size of 1 st and 2 nd
series projects.
It emerged in several monitoring visits that collaboration in large teams is a rather big challenge
– but, however, more than 4/5 of the projects sees the network and collaborations as a
significant added value in the project. In several cases, collaboration also goes beyond the SVC
project. The lower number of project partners requested in the 3 rd and 4 th series, though, does
45