(C) Emmanuel JAECK Warsaw 2009 Key factors of a quantitative indicator system EJ-2007 1 Emmanuel JAECK Prefecture of the Midi-Pyrénées region / France.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
TWO STEP EQUATIONS 1. SOLVE FOR X 2. DO THE ADDITION STEP FIRST
Advertisements

Clinical Engineering in France
EU Presidency Conference Effective policies for the development of competencies of youth in Europe Warsaw, November 2011 Improving basic skills in.
Understanding Student Learning Objectives (S.L.O.s)
10, 11 et 12 Décembre 2008 December , 11 and 12.
Slide 1 Insert your own content. Slide 2 Insert your own content.
1 Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved Fig 2.1 Chapter 2.
By D. Fisher Geometric Transformations. Reflection, Rotation, or Translation 1.
Science Subject Leader Training
1 Instruments and Data Collection New Mexico AmeriCorps April 20, 2006 Sue Hyatt, Project STAR Coach.
President of the National Statistics Council 1 Ridha FERCHIOU National Statistics Council 2007 CNS OECD World Forum on Statistics, Knowledge and Policy.
Designing and Building a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System: A Tool for Public Sector Management.
The Africa Action Plan An IEG Evaluation CSO Forum April 15, 2011.
European Commission - Directorate General for Agriculture EU rural development policy
1 The new ESF Investing in your Future -
DG REGIO – Unit "Thematic Development" EUROPEAN COMMISSION EN 1 Transport and Regional Policy Transport and Regional Policy Patrick.
Planning and use of funding instruments
EU-Regional Policy Structural actions 1 GROWING EVALUATION CAPACITY THE MID TERM EVALUATION IN OBJECTIVE 1 AND 2 REGIONS 8 OCTOBER 2004.
February 16, 2014Ministry of Regional Development - 2 Mid-term assessment of information and publicity measures Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006.
The Implementation Structure DG AGRI, October 2005
The European Qualifications Framework (EQF)
Linking regions and central governments: Indicators for performance-based regional development policy 6 th EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EVALUATION OF COHESION.
OPEN DAYS 2008 presentation of the event to the regions/cities 14 December 2007 Committee of the Regions.
DG REGIO – Unit "Thematic Development" EUROPEAN COMMISSION 1 Regions for Economic Change Communication (2006) 675 of 8/11/2006
Final Report Anton Schrag REGIO D1
The Managing Authority –Keystone of the Control System
1 State of play Evaluations undertaken for DG REGIO.
1 European Union Regional Policy – Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Draft guidance on monitoring and evaluation : Concepts and recommendations.
1 The COHESION System of HERMIN Models: CSHM John Bradley (EMDS), Zuzana Gakova (DG REGIO), Philippe Monfort (DG REGIO), Gerhard Untiedt (GEFRA), Janusz.
1 Managing Authority Conducting a self assessment 10 June 2008 A. Badrichani – DG Regional Policy – Audit Unit J3.
European Union Cohesion Policy
POLISH PRESIDENCY IN THE EU: COHESION POLICY AND EVALUATION-RELATED ACTIVITIES Presentation of Objectives and Programme Stanisław Bienias, Ministry of.
A Fresh Look at the Intervention Logic of Structural Funds
Community Strategic Guidelines DG AGRI, July 2005 Rural Development.
WMO Monitoring & Evaluation System (Measuring our Performance/Success)
Jeopardy Q 1 Q 6 Q 11 Q 16 Q 21 Q 2 Q 7 Q 12 Q 17 Q 22 Q 3 Q 8 Q 13
Jeopardy Q 1 Q 6 Q 11 Q 16 Q 21 Q 2 Q 7 Q 12 Q 17 Q 22 Q 3 Q 8 Q 13
Working Together: Understanding SBA Data Les Morse, Director Assessment & Accountability Alaska Department of Education & Early Development No Child Left.
0 - 0.
DIVIDING INTEGERS 1. IF THE SIGNS ARE THE SAME THE ANSWER IS POSITIVE 2. IF THE SIGNS ARE DIFFERENT THE ANSWER IS NEGATIVE.
MULT. INTEGERS 1. IF THE SIGNS ARE THE SAME THE ANSWER IS POSITIVE 2. IF THE SIGNS ARE DIFFERENT THE ANSWER IS NEGATIVE.
Addition Facts
ZMQS ZMQS
1 Implementing Internet Web Sites in Counseling and Career Development James P. Sampson, Jr. Florida State University Copyright 2003 by James P. Sampson,
BT Wholesale October Creating your own telephone network WHOLESALE CALLS LINE ASSOCIATED.
Presenter: Beresford Riley, Government of
EMS Checklist (ISO model)
10/04/20081 TWG of ESF Committee 10 April 2008 Franck Sébert Head of unit DG EMPL/I/1 Relations with Control Authorities Action plan to strengthen the.
DOROTHY Design Of customeR dRiven shOes and multi-siTe factorY Product and Production Configuration Method (PPCM) ICE 2009 IMS Workshops Dorothy Parallel.
O X Click on Number next to person for a question.
VOORBLAD.
Checking & Corrective Action
New Employee Orientation: Performance Management
Southeastern Association of Educational Opportunity Program Personnel 38 th Annual Conference January 30 – February 3, 2010 Upward Bound Internal & External.
© 2012 National Heart Foundation of Australia. Slide 2.
Past Tense Probe. Past Tense Probe Past Tense Probe – Practice 1.
1 First EMRAS II Technical Meeting IAEA Headquarters, Vienna, 19–23 January 2009.
1 The Data Protection Officer at work Experience, good practices and lessons learnt Pierre Vernhes – former DPO at the Council of the EU Workshop on Data.
LP Seminar – Madrid – 20 October 2008 EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND REPORTING & MONITORING PROCEDURES Lead Partner Seminar Madrid, 20 October 2008.
Addition 1’s to 20.
25 seconds left…...
Test B, 100 Subtraction Facts
11 = This is the fact family. You say: 8+3=11 and 3+8=11
Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto — Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna — The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) eLearning and Virtual.
Week 1.
We will resume in: 25 Minutes.
O X Click on Number next to person for a question.
Presentation transcript:

(C) Emmanuel JAECK Warsaw 2009 Key factors of a quantitative indicator system EJ Emmanuel JAECK Prefecture of the Midi-Pyrénées region / France Warsaw 2009 EJ\Warsaw-2009.ppt Sixth European Conference on Evaluation of Cohesion Policy New Methods for Cohesion Policy Evaluation: Promoting Accountability and Learning

(C) Emmanuel JAECK Warsaw 2009 Key factors of a quantitative indicator system EJ Emmanuel JAECK Head of the Evaluation Unit Prefecture of the Midi-Pyrénées region (Managing Authority) FRANCE

(C) Emmanuel JAECK Warsaw 2009 Key factors of a quantitative indicator system EJ Midi-Pyrénées? Source :

(C) Emmanuel JAECK Warsaw 2009 Key factors of a quantitative indicator system EJ A consciously instrumental approach => Looking for causal links

(C) Emmanuel JAECK Warsaw 2009 Key factors of a quantitative indicator system EJ – Multi-Level System

(C) Emmanuel JAECK Warsaw 2009 Key factors of a quantitative indicator system EJ Single Programming Document Midi-Pyrénées 7 Priorities –23 measures 75 actions On 31 December 2006On 31 December operations entered operations entered operations planned operations planned

(C) Emmanuel JAECK Warsaw 2009 Key factors of a quantitative indicator system EJ But in reality we have: 128 individual actions like Example of a heterogeneous action (territorial approach) Axe 2 ………..…….= Promouvoir les territoires de projets Measure 2.7….....= Accompagner le développement concerté et durable Action 2.7.2…….. = Soutien aux projets intégrés => Support to –Actions culturelles –Patrimoine rural –Insertion pas léconomie –Fiche industrielle et urbaine

(C) Emmanuel JAECK Warsaw 2009 Key factors of a quantitative indicator system EJ For 11,800 planned operations 202 output and result indicators 18 indicators for performance reserve 6 impact indicators And on 30 th October % of indicators not correctly registered (incomplete or incoherent)

(C) Emmanuel JAECK Warsaw 2009 Key factors of a quantitative indicator system EJ Key factors of: 1. 2.Collection System 3.Management of indicator data

(C) Emmanuel JAECK Warsaw 2009 Key factors of a quantitative indicator system EJ – Collection system A network of officers trained An information system A collection tool A procedure + A practical guide

(C) Emmanuel JAECK Warsaw 2009 Key factors of a quantitative indicator system EJ – Management of Indicator Data Contact with the promoter Control by examining department Quality control

(C) Emmanuel JAECK Warsaw 2009 Key factors of a quantitative indicator system EJ Sensitive points: System Design Implementation Use of Indicators

(C) Emmanuel JAECK Warsaw 2009 Key factors of a quantitative indicator system EJ Sensitive points : System Design The system cannot reflect everything. Striking the balance between monitoring and evaluation is a must. Un système qui répond à tous les enjeux de pilotage et aussi de gestion. The objectives of the actions are sometimes vague and choosing the indicators often follows later Higher level indicators to be precisely defined very early

(C) Emmanuel JAECK Warsaw 2009 Key factors of a quantitative indicator system EJ Sensitive points : Implementation Bear in mind that the system cannot quickly answer to questions on effects Train and support the persons responsible for the management of indicator data throughout the period Keep track of changes of reference documents (PO et Domo)

(C) Emmanuel JAECK Warsaw 2009 Key factors of a quantitative indicator system EJ Sensitive points : Use of Indicators Indicators should not become final objectives Integrate the natural dynamics of each action in target setting Take into account the internal factors influencing the progress of indicator values Communiquer avec rigueur et prudence à laide dindicateurs notamment si les précautions méthodologique ne sont pas entendables

(C) Emmanuel JAECK Warsaw 2009 Key factors of a quantitative indicator system EJ Pragmatic System under Control Legitimate Real Obligation Control from Supervising Authority Potential Sanctions

(C) Emmanuel JAECK Warsaw 2009 Key factors of a quantitative indicator system EJ Thank you for your attention