Date: in 12 pts Qualitative assessment Relevance of mobility project Internationalisation strategy Types of mobility Impact & dissemination Impact on different levels Dissemination measures Quality of project design & implementation Selection, support and recognition Quality of cooperation Previous experience Definition of responsibilities & tasks
Date: in 12 pts Relevance of mobility project Internationalisation strategy30pts Types of mobility how Partner Country fits applicant's internationalisation strategy. how project reinforces capacities & international scope of participants. How mobility fits internationalisation/ development strategy(ies) of specific Partner Country HEIs chosen. explanations for requested incoming & outgoing mobility flows of staff (training/ teaching) &/or students (different cycles) w.r.t internationalisation strategies of HEIs.
Date: in 12 pts Quality of cooperation Previous experience30pts Definition of responsibilities & tasks planned cooperation arrangements. Previous mobility project with chosen Partner Country is an advantage, regardless supported by EU (e.g. Erasmus Mundus) or other funds. existence of previous or running cooperation agreements between applicant HEI & partners setting out respective roles & tasks
Date: in 12 pts Quality of project design & implementation Selection, support and recognition 20pts Practical implementation of mobilities clarity, completeness & quality (prep., implementation & follow-up) participant selection incl. equal opps. & promotion of disadvantaged persons information & support prior to mobility, e.g. accommodation, agreements, insurance, visa, etc. recognition mechanisms envisaged for learning outcomes (e.g. ECTS or other) how HEIs recognise & reward outgoing staff mobility
Date: in 12 pts Impact & dissemination Impact on different levels20pts Dissemination measures The evaluator will assess potential impact & dissemination of mobility flows with a given Partner Country in terms of: potential impact on individuals & HEIs, during & after project lifetime results dissemination at faculty & institution level, for all participants strategy for monitoring & evaluating the outcomes
Date: in 12 pts To be eligible for funding ≥70% per set of mobility flows by Partner Country; ≥ half of max. points per award criterion. Thresholds
Date: in 12 pts Min. 1 expert (internal or external) NA briefs about eligible flows, respecting (1) Programme Guide, (2) any secondary criteria (3) available Heading 1 funds for DCI countries Expert briefing
Date: in 12 pts Expert tasks Flag ineligible flows Score each set of mobility flows per Partner Country according to 4 quality criteria Give a range of advice to NA
Date: in 12 pts Expert Recommendations 1.retention of entire set of mobility flows for a Partner Country. 2.retention of only certain mobility flows 3.reduction of some/all mobility flows 4.rejection of entire set of mobility flows for a Partner Country
Date: in 12 pts Each NA produces 10 ranking lists (1 per budget envelope) Evaluation committee makes proposal for flows to be accepted, partially accepted, rejected Funding allocated according to available budget by envelope in order of merit – exceptions to be duly justified Selection process
Date: in 12 pts Q. What constitutes "duly justified" exceptions to depart from the ranking order? A. Avoiding overconcentration of budget on particular popular countries within budget envelopes E.g. (BR/MX; CN/IN; RS; UA; EG) Geographical balance?
Date: in 12 pts Example of adjustment Ranking for IPA envelope in Slovenia (€211,853) U LjubljanaSerbia88%€50k U Nova Gorica Serbia86%€52k U Primorska Albania84%€60k U Maribor Serbia82%€45k U Maribor Kosovo80%€48k U Nova GoricaBosnia79%€26k U Ljubljana Bosnia75%€50k