1. Work Package 6 L2C Kick-off meeting Fontainebleau, March 7th 2006

2. Aims This WP is dedicated to the continuous assessment of the output & systems developed throughout WP1-WP4, and to the documentation of the evaluation methodology and results.

3. The evaluation methodology More specifically, the objectives of the evaluation methodology adopted are: (formative evaluation) To help to understand the needs, and therefore help in deciding about the relevant functionalities (from a user and market perspective) to be provided by the technical. (summative evaluation) To assess the efficiency of the technical solution and approach that has been designed in this project (substantive evaluation) To evaluate the effective value of the solution and about the solution and the approach

4. Steering Committee A steering committee will have the general responsibility for the project’s evaluation. This steering committee will be composed by the Scientific Board and the Technical Board. The Scientific Board will be responsible for the theoretical evaluation of the project while the Technical Board will be responsible for the technical evaluation of the project. Each of them will consist of 8 independent scientific/technical experts, correspondingly. For this reason, each pilot partner (i.e. ALBA, INSEAD, UniCredit and, FIAT ISVOR) will contribute a group of 2 independent experts (who will not have been involved in the previous phases of the project) to each Board.

5. Tasks Task 6.1. Evaluation Plan.(UCSC) The evaluation plan describes the overall evaluation framework, as well as, the main evaluation tasks that will be implemented in the L2C project throughout its duration. This task should also provide a framework to collect material for the technical problems faced by the various networks and the adopted technical solutions. Task 6.2. Technical Evaluation of the Prototypes. (UCSC) The L2C prototypes need to be evaluated from a technical point of view. The modularity, scalability, performance response, technical adherence to requirements and user-friendliness of all the components must be taken under observation and evaluated. Task 6.3. Assessment of Learning Contribution.(INSEAD) This task will focus on the evaluation of the actual impact of the developed L2C methodology in supporting the learning activities of the studied test-beds. Task 6.4. Assessment of Project’s Impact and Benchmarking.(UCSC) A final review has to be conducted in order to compare and aggregate the Project’s impact achieved in the different fields and application areas. Therefore a comparative analysis will provide qualitative and quantitative measurement categories. The collected data will be processed in a way that forecasts about the benefits and the transferability to different industries and European regions are generated and a benchmarking template will be provided.

6. Deliverables D 6.1 Evaluation Plan (M8) D 6.2 Technical and Pedagogical Evaluation Criteria and Metrics (M8) D 6.3 Evaluation Report of the First Prototype (M12) D 6.4 Evaluation Report of the Final Prototype (M18) D 6.5 Evaluation Report of Simulation Games prototypes (M22) D 6.6 Project’s Assessment / Comparative Analysis (Final Report) (M24)

7. Participants efforts INS EAD UCSCUAF M OFA I OUSCI L IFALBAUCMeTisFVAAlphaSU 6,07,54,03,53,04,02,54,02,54,51,00,04,0

8. D 6.1 (Evaluation plan) Aims (what) Evaluation framework formative evaluation summative evaluation substantive evaluation Metrics (how) Timing (when) Evaluators (who)

9. D6.2 – (Technical and Pedagogical Evaluation Criteria and Metrics) CRITERIAMETRICSBENCHMARKS WP1 WP3/4

10. Next step Appointment of the steering committee (8 members of each board) Definition of working groups on technical/pedagogical metrics ……