PROMIS a short introduction. Morten Kvistgaard, international consultant

Transkript

1 PROMIS a short introduction Morten Kvistgaard, international consultant mkv@evaluators.eu

2 PROMIS P = PROJECT R = RESULT O = ORIENTED M = MANAGEMENT I = INFORMATION S = SYSTEM

3 WHAT IS PROMIS? An effective Danish integrated IT system for Project application (applicants) Project prioritization (FLAG/LAG boards) Project approval (Managing Authority) Project reporting (Project beneficiaries/recipients) Monitoring (FLAG/LAG and MA) Evaluation (FLAG/LAG and MA) Data visualization (FLAG/LAG and MA)

4 Objectives EU2020 objectives National Operational Programme for the Fishery Sector Local Development Strategies PROMIS system overview Application form and project document FLAG LDS and project prioritizatio n tool MA project approval Expected resource input and output, results and impacts Reporting: Monitoring and Evaluation Project/FLAG/MA level - Data visualization FLAG/MA level Realized ressource input and outputs, results and impacts Relevance, Effectiveness and Efficiency, Sustainability FLAG/LAG Self evaluation

5 PROMIS: Three level system Project applicants/project beneficiaries FLAG coordinators and board members Managing Authority

6 Applicants level - 1 Online access to application form More than one person may have access to the same application = group work Smart application form with drop down menus depending on selection of topics/project theme Smart control functions checking budgets and financing = Submission not possible before indicated errors are corrected

7 Applicants level - 2 Expected effects indicated, depending on project theme Distribution of project funds on LDS priorities and effect areas Online submission to LAG/FLAG for administrative control = dialogue online regarding corrections Applicant can always follow the application s state of play in the approval process

8 LAG/FLAG and Board before opening of calls Coordinators and Board infer LDS priorities in the electronic application form Coordinators and Board decide on the Sub-questions under the generic prioritization criteria used in the call Weight of the scoring of the criteria Minimum scores required for each criteria Yes/No to prioritization of Young applicants and Geographical areas of special interest

9 LAG/FLAG and Board when call is open Coordinators and board members have access to and monitor all draft and submitted applications Coordinators may facilitate the preparation of the draft applications in cooperation with applicants on line

10 LAG/FLAG and Board when the call is closed Coordinators and/or Boards prioritize the submitted applications after a predefined model Projects with the highest number of scored points must be recommended for MA approval Applications are either submitted electronically to MA for final approval or rejected by the F/LAG

11 Generic project prioritization criteria 1. Project presentation and applicant s capacity 2. Visibility 3. Relevance 4. Local anchoring 5. Cooperation 6. Innovation 7. Sustainability 8. Effects

12 Weights How do they work? Prioriteringskriterium Grundvægtningen i procent (55%) LAG-fordeling af 45 procentpoint: 35 points* + yderligere 10 points** Endelig vægtning i Værdi af hvert point under hvert kriterium med den under Effekter procent* givne vægt Projektbeskrivelse ,96 Synlighed ,44 Relevans ,56 Lokal forankring ,32 Samarbejde ,32 Innovation ,36 Bæredygtighed ,44 Total kriterier eksl. effekter Økonomiske effekter ,32 Miljømæssige effekter ,72 Klimaeffekter ,6 Sociale effekter ,48 Kulturelle effekter ,48 Total effekter ,6 Total i alt

13 Priority criteria Basic weight (MA) Average weight (LAG) Highest weight (LAG) Lowest weight (LAG) Project and applicant 5 5, Relevance 6 5, Visibility 5 3,9 7 0 Local anchoring 5 5,1 8 4 Cooperation 6 4,8 7 3 Innovation 3 4, Sustainability 5 4,9 7 2 Economic effects 7 2,5 5 1 Environmental effects 4 1,4 2 0 Climate effects 3 1,4 2 0 Social effects 3 2,4 5 1 Cultural effects 3 2,2 4 0

14 Prioriteringskriterium Udvikling Stevns Opnået score i Vægtning i procent procent Vægtning i Endelig pointscore absolutte tal (justeret for vægt) Projektbeskrivelse 80% 8,0 0,96 77 Relevans 70% 11,0 1,32 92 Synlighed 30% 13,0 1,56 47 Lokal forankring 65% 10,0 1,20 78 Samarbejde 20% 12,0 1,44 29 Innovation 40% 6,0 0,72 29 Bæredygtighed Total (eksklusiv effekter) 60% 10,0 1, Økonomiske effekter 80% 9,0 1,08 86 Miljømæssige effekter 40% 5,0 0,60 24 Klimaeffekter 20% 5,0 0,60 12 Sociale effekter 20% 5,0 0,60 12 Kulturelle effekter Effekter total Total 20% 6,0 0, Evt. vægtning af unge ansøgere 1,08 0 Evt. vægtning af GOSI (geografiske områder af særlig in Total 1, Minimumsscore Difference Prioriteringskriterium Opnået score i procent Vægtning i procent Vægtning i Endelig pointscore absolutte tal (justeret for vægt) Projektbeskrivelse 80% 15,0 1, Relevans 70% 15,0 1, Synlighed 30% 6,0 0,72 22 Lokal forankring 65% 9,0 1,08 70 Samarbejde 20% 10,0 1,20 24 Innovation 40% 6,0 0,72 29 Bæredygtighed Total (eksklusiv effekter) 60% 9,0 1, Økonomiske effekter 80% 8,0 0,96 77 Miljømæssige effekter 40% 5,0 0,60 24 Klimaeffekter 20% 5,0 0,60 12 Sociale effekter 20% 6,0 0,72 14 Kulturelle effekter Effekter total Total 20% 6,0 0, Evt. vægtning af unge ansøgere 1,08 0 Evt. vægtning af GOSI (geografiske områder af særlig in Total 1, Minimumsscore Difference Djursland

15 Minimum scores Total minimum score of 450 point out of 1,200 Minimum scores for each criteria and/or effect area Strongest management tool Consequence: Exclude projects without sufficient quality, (fx cooperation, innovation or relevance for the LDS of the LAG/FLAG).

16 Effect categories Economic effects: Turnover, GVA, jobs etc. Environmental effects: Resource use, waste, pollution, reduced dissemination etc. Climate related effects: Energy efficiency, green energy, local resources Social effects: Social coherence, quality of life Cultural effects: Cultural coherence

17 IT feature of PROMIS One central database On-line web access from all computers, everywhere, anytime via log in Upload, download and print out of documents, if needed Submission/processing of applications online by changing the status of the application/project Applicants: From draft to final LAG/FLAG: From submitted to prioritized and recommended MA: From received to processed/approved Project beneficiaries: From ongoing to finalized MA: From on-going to finalized and payments completed

18 Overview: On-going monitoring and evaluation On-line and real time overview over drafts, applications, ongoing and completed projects Numbers of projects Value: Total project budgets, private and public funding Geographical distribution Thematic distribution The expected and realized effects of projects Expected and realized effectiveness and efficiency of projects (such as jobs/1 million )

19 How can we tell?

20 USE PROMIS! Thank you for your attention!