E.6

The Cost-Benefit Ratio
The consortium leverages in a major way on work done in earlier projects, both internationally - in particular Re.ViCa and Learnovation - and nationally, in particular UK, Greece, Estonia and Finland. The detailed work assignment within workpackages was done by carefully matching skills with interest, talent and knowledge - this is particularly the case for the meticulous selection of which partner analyses which countries and which partners handle success factors (only those with massive experience in the topic) and piloting (one major pilot with two smaller ones, rather than many partners each with small pilots).

The consortium is balanced between high-cost and lower-cost countries and where possible within other constraints, extra work has been allocated to these lower-cost countries.

The number of partners was chosen carefully to be cost-effective for project management yet providing good coverage of EU countries and skills. This is accentuated by using only a subset of partners (those with larger work allocations) to be WP leaders and by using for each workpackage only a subset of partners for most work - except of course for project management (WP1) and Dissemination (WP7 - except P6).

For WP9 we decided not to limit effort to the evaluator (P6), believing that self-evaluation by each partner is a key component of evaluation, especially the formative evaluation after 1 year needed in a 2-year project, and a cost-effective way of supplying evaluation effort, thus limiting core evaluator effort to only 2.5% of project effort. Further, we decided to adopt a "pure evaluation" approach, not permitting the evaluator to lose focus by supplying input to other WPs.

Similarly we felt that the cost-benefit ratio for the Exploitation workpackage (WP8) was best delivered by allowing all partners to make small amounts of input to this yet have a small core team for drafting the Agreement.

Travel was also restricted to those workpackages where it was most valuable.

> Part E >>> Main Page