1. ERASMUS+ EMREX – Field trial on the impact of enabling easy mobility on recognition of external studies Title and date

2. ERASMUS+ Project Quality Review 1 Project Quality Plan states 3 yearly QA activities Project Audit –To measure the application of the approved Project Plan and discover deviations Project Review –To discover any deviations from and/or risks related to time, schedule, scope, and budget Quality Audit –To measure the application of the approved Quality Plan and discover deviations Two reviews planned, the first in January 2016

3. ERASMUS+ The reality One activity that fulfills the goals of all three planned ones –Costly activities, scaled down to the project size Project manager’s not participating in all reviews Focus on quality issues, status and risk Added Italian development, not only WP’s Adapted to the informal way we work

4. ERASMUS+ Meetings Interviews with all WP leads in January –Got all the time needed, thank you! Added interview with Italian partner in Feb –Part of the WP3 review –Joined by Mats Questionaire was good enough as a basis for the interview

5. ERASMUS+ The result – the good Project is progressing and all partners are confident about the result Resources are sufficient to get a network in production for the Field Study Development is in a comfort zone There are no issues about roles, scope or objectives We are confident about our relations to the stakeholders

6. ERASMUS+ The result – the bad (or not so good) Informal project management –Co-ordination more than managing –Activities tracking has improved but still wanting –Risk management not broken down to WP level or related to activities Partly high individual dependencies –Most partners has no contingency problems Information flow is difficult to follow –Many channels and overflow

7. ERASMUS+ The result – the ugly Uncertainty about scope regarding production readiness –Solution for the Field Study or a finished solution for the masses? Not all partners has secured the application management during Field Trial Need a new risk assessment No follow-up on QA procedures

8. ERASMUS+ Recommendations New risk assessment, define risk reducing activities Document decisions on the wiki Agree on communication channels Secure the application management during the Field study Update the quality plan

9. ERASMUS+ Suggestions Describe the difference between the consortium and the project formalia “Half time”-workshop to evaluate the way we work and our scope –Improve the way we work in the project –Start thinking about post-project activities “Mini project plans” for the coming activities on the wiki

10. ERASMUS+ Observations and questions How do we know that there is real acceptance of deliverables? Communication between the WP lead and the partners can be improved –Based very much on trust, –Feed-back and follow-up can be improved