Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

INTERREG IVC POWER Programme Evaluation Emerging findings Angela Francis and Sheila Sim, SQW.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "INTERREG IVC POWER Programme Evaluation Emerging findings Angela Francis and Sheila Sim, SQW."— Presentation transcript:

1 INTERREG IVC POWER Programme Evaluation Emerging findings Angela Francis and Sheila Sim, SQW

2 Background to the evaluation 1

3 2 Evaluation’s objectives...and required outputs evaluate the outputs and results of the nine POWER sub-projects determine and assess the contribution that the POWER programme has made on identifying key policy areas that could be rolled out within the regions and across Europe evaluate the management of the POWER programme provide examples of lessons learnt to inform future initiatives promoting low carbon economies provide examples of lessons learnt to inform future development of EU inter- regional programmes. A measure of the impact of the POWER programme through the evaluation of the 9 sub-projects An evaluation of the contribution the POWER programme has made to policy areas and good practice that can be rolled out An evaluation of the implementation and coordination of the POWER programme in the 7 participating regions

4 3 an expert team with practical experience and regional insight European programmes – INTERREG Regions for Sustainable Change developing low carbon analytical tools and DG Information Society and Media ICT enabled energy efficiency best practice in transport and buildings Evaluation – successful ERDF evaluations in South East, South West and East Midlands, developing the RDA evaluation framework for BIS, and developing the Magenta Book for HM Treasury Low carbon economy and innovation – regional renewable energy capacity assessments and DECC/CLG guidance, LCOG feasibility study for Kent CC Scott Dickinson Project Director Angela Francis Project Manager Sheila Sim Kerry Fox Erica Ward Data analysis Document review Consultations Core Team – SQW South East Jon Linberg Stockholm Region Pirko Konsa TallinnRegion Jan Szczucki Malopolska Roland Zanen Noord Brabant Manuela Galaverni Emila-Romagna Silvia Vega Andalucia Regional Consultants

5 4 Key lines of enquiry Focus Is the sub-project addressing key regional challenges? Does the sub-project complement and add value to other regional activity? Process How well did the partnership, network, and forum operate? How appropriate and effective were the monitoring arrangements? Impact How successful were the projects in achieving their goals? Which regional policies have been influenced by the sub-projects so far (or will be in the future)? How did the international nature of partnership contribute to these achievements?

6 Work programme – progress to date Completed Scoping discussions & consultations with the Secretariat Detailed consultations with all 7 Regional Correspondents In depth consultation with 20 Sub-project Managers E-survey of all Sub-project Managers – over 90% response rate In progress Analysis of all monitoring information up to June 2011 A further 20+ consultations with wider stakeholders and regional experts on the impact of the programme Review of the final policy report and regional road maps Final evaluation report to be published on the POWER website 5 May 2011 Jul 2011 Sep 2011 Oct 2011

7 Emerging findings 6

8 Focus 1.The broad set of regional partners with different contexts, challenges and expertise exposes partners to new and novels issues and approaches 2.The breadth of issues addressed makes it difficult to explain the overall programme and for the POWER brand to resonate with stakeholders 3.The breadth of issues addressed make it hard for partners to ‘own’ the programme and therefore take the lead in implementing its results 4.The focus of the programme is on inter-regional transfers but this undervalues the potential for within region transfer which could be a very effective and important dissemination route 5.Sub-projects tend to be most effective when,  they are focused either on raising awareness and building capacity for end users  or they are focused on developing specific and practical improvements to policy design or implementation ...doing both well is much harder 7

9 Focus 1.The broad set of regional partners with different contexts, challenges and expertise exposes partners to new and novels issues and approaches 2.The breadth of issues addressed makes it difficult to explain the overall programme and for the POWER brand to resonate with stakeholders 3.The breadth of issues addressed make it hard for partners to ‘own’ the programme and therefore take the lead in implementing its results 4.The focus of the programme is on inter-regional transfers but this undervalues the potential for within region transfer which could be a very effective and important dissemination route 5.Sub-projects tend to be most effective when,  they are focused either on raising awareness and building capacity for end users  or they are focused on developing specific and practical improvements to policy design or implementation ...doing both well is much harder 8

10 Focus “Broad based programmes make it harder for any regional partners to ‘own’ the outcomes and take the lead in implementing its results” 9

11 Focus “INTERREG programmes focus on inter-regional transfers and undervalue subsequent transfers within regions which are also effective and important dissemination routes” 10

12 Focus “Sub-projects tend to be most effective when they focus on either raising awareness and building capacity for end users or focused on developing specific and practical improvements to policy design or implementation” 11 or

13 Processes 1.The programme was developed in a robust and thoughtful way that engaged regional partners and experts 2.The programme is administratively burdensome and demanding which compromises sub-project delivery 3.Long lags in recovering funding means that sub-project partners require interim funding to be able to participate 4.The integrated on-line monitoring and reporting system (OMS) was considered exemplary by sub-project managers 5.The core results of the sub-projects are not well captured in the programme reporting which focuses on quantity of activity not quality of outcomes 6.The programme was very successful in modelling the use of new media 7.The sub-projects would have benefitted from more time to develop, deliver, test, finalise and disseminate their achievements 8.Integrating policy influencing throughout the lifecycle of the programme was a challenge  Sub-projects addressed policy influencing at the end of delivery  At programme level, regional partners really engaged with the outcomes and implications of programme in the final stages 12

14 Processes 1.The programme was developed in a robust and thoughtful way that engaged regional partners and experts 2.The programme is administratively burdensome and demanding which compromises sub-project delivery 3.Long lags in recovering funding means that sub-project partners require interim funding to be able to participate 4.The integrated on-line monitoring and reporting system (OMS) was considered exemplary by sub-project managers 5.The core results of the sub-projects are not well captured in the programme reporting which focuses on quantity of activity not quality of outcomes 6.The programme was very successful in modelling the use of new media 7.The sub-projects would have benefitted from more time to develop, deliver, test, finalise and disseminate their achievements 8.Integrating policy influencing throughout the lifecycle of the programme was a challenge  Sub-projects addressed policy influencing at the end of delivery  At programme level, regional partners really engaged with the outcomes and implications of programme in the final stages 13

15 Processes “The programme was developed in a robust and thoughtful way that engaged regional partners and experts” 14

16 Processes “The programme is administratively burdensome and demanding which compromises sub-project delivery” 15

17 Processes “The sub-projects would have benefitted from more time to develop, deliver, test, finalise and disseminate their achievements” 16

18 Impact 1.The programme has managed to adapt to significant changes in regional structures, organisations and effect that has had on budgets and resources 2.There has been real energy and commitment amongst partners and the programme has been flexible enough to take advantage of opportunities that have emerged in the course of delivery 3.The sub-projects have all delivered their ambitions but many have not yet embedded them and ‘sold’ the benefits to the region 4.The sub-projects have successfully stimulated cross regional working amongst experts – further projects and improved networks 5.The route to impact of the sub-projects are clearer and stronger where there is one clear and narrow deliverable to which all regions have contributed 6.The most effective sub-projects started with a system analysis of barriers to delivering the low carbon economy and developed a solution to that problem 7.Most sub-projects have been characterised by a linear approach to knowledge transfer – develop something then transfer it – this means dissemination comes at the end which risks it being less effective 8.Stakeholders have grown their knowledge and networks and will have important roles as champions and ambassadors for their deliverables in the future 17

19 Impact 1.The programme has managed to adapt to significant changes in regional structures, organisations and effect that has had on budgets and resources 2.There has been real energy and commitment amongst partners and the programme has been flexible enough to take advantage of opportunities that have emerged in the course of delivery 3.The sub-projects have all delivered their ambitions but many have not yet embedded them and ‘sold’ the benefits to the region 4.The sub-projects have successfully stimulated cross regional working amongst experts – further projects and improved networks 5.The route to impact of the sub-projects are clearer and stronger where there is one clear and narrow deliverable to which all regions have contributed 6.The most effective sub-projects started with a system analysis of barriers to delivering the low carbon economy and developed a solution to that problem 7.Most sub-projects have been characterised by a linear approach to knowledge transfer – develop something then transfer it – this means dissemination comes at the end which risks it being less effective 8.Stakeholders have grown their knowledge and networks and will have important roles as champions and ambassadors for their deliverables in the future 18

20 Impact “The programme has managed to adapt and respond to significant changes in regional structures, organisations and effect that has had on budgets and resources” 19

21 Impact “The route to impact of the sub-projects are clearer and stronger where there is one clear and narrow deliverable to which all regions have contributed” 20

22 Impact “The most effective sub-projects started with a system analysis of barriers to delivering the low carbon economy and developing solutions to the problem” 21

23 Next Steps Complete our analysis  Capturing the outputs presented here today  Consultations focused on impact of the sub-projects Draft report to SEEDA in October 2011 Final report and recommendations published on the POWER website “Thank you for all your inputs and contributions so far!” 22

24 Questions and Comments 23

25 Contact 24 Angela Francis Senior Consultant SQW t e. w.


Download ppt "INTERREG IVC POWER Programme Evaluation Emerging findings Angela Francis and Sheila Sim, SQW."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google