1. PROWAT participating project evaluation participating project evaluation

4. Project How to develop a new tie, a one man’s project Evaluation of the project - Product: Did the bee man reached his objective, developing a new tie? Did the bee man reached his objective, developing a new tie? Process: Process: - If yes, how did he reached it? - If yes, how did he reached it? - If not why not? - If not why not? - What did the bees? - What did the bees? - Why did they do it? - Why did they do it?

5. PROJECT EVALUATION  A “judgement” of products and processes done in the (nearby) past of a project to reach the described aims and objectives in a project proposal  Project Evaluation: –Product –Process  Evaluation: –External –Internal * Participating * * Participating *

6. PROWAT AIM = How to reduce the loss of Drinking water

7. PROWAT PRODUCTS  NATIONAL REPORTS and the overview  “THE BOOK”  TRAINING MODULES *in a moodle surrounding* *in a moodle surrounding*  POSEIDON  WEB-SITE, search machines  PR: CD, leaflets, news alert letter, brochures, posters

8. EVALUATION NATIONAL REPORTS, advantage of staf expertise in the project team  Country report evaluated by two appointed PROWAT team members of two different other countries.  Internal evaluators scored on the developed questionnaire  The PROWAT project evaluator sent the comments of the internal country report evaluators, to the responsible author of the involved National Report  The authors decided to improve the National Report after the comments of the evaluators.

10. Overview National Reports Overview National Reports  The Pamukkale University Overview of the National Reports is in fact also a content evaluation of the National Reports.  In general the internal PROWAT evaluators awarded the (draft) National Reports as written well.

11. “THE BOOK”  Expert evaluation in each country  Comments to Pamukkale:  improvements of the book

12. Training Modules  Evaluation (test) co-ordinated by Pamukkale  Results send to Training 2000 for improvement  Each country pre tested at least one module with the aid of students. with the aid of students.

13. Poseidon a software tool  Evaluated by project team members and students  Improved: a better description how to use the tool + some examples

14. Web-site  Public part and commercial part  Team and individual evaluations, improvements  The parabolic interface information data base in it (almost forgotten but thanks to evaluation back on the stage)

15. PR Materials  CD,  leaflets,  news alert letter,  brochures,  Posters  Evaluation by the individual members of the team

16. EVALUATION PROCESS

17. PROWAT PROCESS  COMMUNICATION  Formal - Informal  Between partners  Between partners and promoter/coordinator  Surrounding of the evaluation (Project Meeting/ Seminar/ Individual/ Team.)  Access to facts and figures

18. PROWAT communication  Mail  Skype/ msn / Telephone  Web-site chat/forum  Project Meetings  Dissemination/expert meetings  Seminar/Conference  Excursions

19. Evaluation Methods  Evaluation questionnaires  Interviews (recorded)  Open/closed questions  Process/products  Observing Process –participating or not-  Products

20. Example Evaluation questionnaire Statements, questionsyesdo not know noTot al # Averag e score Remarks 2.The Technical Excursion on Thursday afternoon contributed to my understanding how the Finish water distribution system in Helsinki is functioning. 82101.8-Exactly they explained everything about Helsinki’s distribution -Maybe somefieldtrip needed to the key points of the system, SCADA center etc. 6. The comments and suggestions during Session 3 will improve the content of the DVD-ROM 10 2 7. It is clear how to test the software program POSEIDON 9494 1414 10 2 1.9 1.2

21. Scores  interviews results were put into a data sheet. For each statement the number of times it was mentioned as either “yes”, “do not know” or “not” was calculated. To facilitate comparison of importance of the different topics, an average score per topic was calculated, by using the following formula:  Average Score = (2 x yes + 1 x do not know) : total #, in which:  yes= number of interviewees considering this statement as “yes”  do not know= number of interviewees considering this statement as “do not know”  total #=total number of interviewees that answered the question.  In this way the maximum score of a “statement” can be 2 (when all interviewees consider it as yes the minimum 0 (when all interviewees consider the topic as “no

22. The Results of the Evaluations  The results are indications for the MIS (management information system): -Products to be improved -Products to be improved -Partners to be encouraged -Partners to be encouraged -Processes to be more guided -Processes to be more guided

23. Groups of project respondents  Technical experts  Training experts  Students  Project members  Conference members: yes it is you!

24. Statements, questionsyesdo not know nobecause 1.The Water-Loss Seminar gave me a good impression of the PROWAT Project 2. The Seminars was meeting my expectations 3. The PROWAT Training Methods to reduce the loss of drinking water are very useful for Turkey 4. I will advice my colleagues to read the PROWAT „BasicWater Loss Book” in the Turkish version 5. I want to study on internet a module based on The Basic Water Loss Book in the moodle application in Turkish 6. ERBIL has to organise more of these kind of Seminars General Remarks.......................................................................................................................................