WP3 Quality Management Plan

ERASMUS Lifelong Learning Program

Health & Well-being in Tourism Destination2012 - 2014

Work Package 3: Quality Management

Date: 2013-02-01Author: Donna Dvorak (IHM) Distribution: WelDest project team internal useFile name 2012.2.1.QualityPlan.v05.IHMVersion: 5.0 Description: Report presenting the quality

management plan for project WelDest

Version Date Status Author Changes1 2012-10-01 Draft Dvorak - IHM2 2012-11-03 Draft Dvorak – IHM Updates to tables, Format

3 2012-12-12 Draft Dvorak – IHM Updates to tables, clarification of terms, modifications in response to peer comments

4 2013-01-16 Draft Dvorak-IHM Updates to tables, clarification of status reports and risk assessment matrix

5 2013-02-01 FINAL Dvorak-IHM6 2013-08-20 FINAL Dvorak-IHM Revised after removal of UOP team

1 WP 3: Quality |

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Background....................................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Aim and Scope of the Quality Management Plan............................................................................................................... 4

2 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES................................................................................. 5

2.1 Organization structure - roles............................................................................................................................................ 5

2.2 Division of Work............................................................................................................................................................... 5

3 PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL......................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 Quality Requirements....................................................................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Plans................................................................................................................................................................................. 8

3.3 Performance Quality......................................................................................................................................................... 83.3.1 Preventative Activities – Risk Management.......................................................................................................................83.3.2 Evaluation of Project Deliverables - Outputs.....................................................................................................................9

3.4 Process Quality............................................................................................................................................................... 12

4 COMMUNICATION............................................................................................................................................ 13

4.1 Meetings......................................................................................................................................................................... 13

4.2 Exchange of Documents, Correspondence....................................................................................................................... 13

5 DOCUMENTS...................................................................................................................................................... 14

5.1 Document Storage and Accessiblity................................................................................................................................. 14

5.2 Outputs........................................................................................................................................................................... 14

5.3 Document Format........................................................................................................................................................... 14

5.4 Nomenclature of Documents:.......................................................................................................................................... 14Appendix 1 – Work packages and Subtasks...................................................................................................................................16Appendix 2 – Risk Assessment Matrix............................................................................................................................................17

2 WP 3: Quality|

1 Introduction

The purpose of this section is to give a brief description of the WelDest project, including the rationale, objectives and expectations.

1.1 Background

The Wellness trend is a growing demand factor for tourism and leisure activities globally. However, there are specific needs and challenges regarding this trend that should be met. For both the customer and the industry, there is some confusion about correct terminology, as well as what constitutes appropriate services and products for varying needs. This also extends to a lack of proper educational material and course design at the tertiary and adult-learner level on Health & Well-being destination development. Wellness is less seasonal and more labor-intensive, and there is a need for this in many European countries where tourism can act as an economic booster.

The WelDest project aims to address the needs that have been identified above by creating a development framework to be used by public bodies, destination management organizations (DMOs) and private companies at tourism destinations willing to strengthen the elements influencing the well-being level of tourists and locals alike. The framework, supported by educational material, enables development of the tourism destination towards a more holistic and sustainable H&WB destination.

The objectives of the project are:1 To outline, via research, the key service supply, resources, staff competencies and elementsof H&WB at tourist

destinations appreciated by both tourists and locals.2 To identify or strengthen the potential for business opportunities in tourism and leisure and to foster innovation

around H&WB based services and destination development 3 To contribute to lifelong learning at various educational levels, between disciplines and related industries. The

learning process is supported by the following outputs:a An electronic handbook “Keys to developing a holistic health & well-being tourism destination” (working title),

including a self-assessment and development tool, to be used by public and private bodies developing their businesses and destinations. For use in tertiary educational institutions with various types/levels of study, the handbook will be accompanied by course design, including educator instructions.

b A blog providing industry, academia and citizens with new opportunities to improve and share their knowledge on H&WB and tourism related issues.

The WelDest project combines the knowledge, experience and expertise of academic and industry partners from five countries (Finland, Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic and the UK). The main project language is English, though partners’ languages will also be used in various stages of the project.

3 WP 3: Quality|

The duration of the project is 24 months (October 1, 2012 – September 30, 2014) and is comprised of six work packages:

1 Project management and leadership1 Dissemination2 Quality management of the project3 Research4 Creation of educational materials5 Exploitation

1.2 Aim and Scope of the Quality Management Plan

This document, for internal use by the WelDest project team, will act as a guide for the internal quality management of the WelDest Project and contains the general rules agreed upon in order to ensure its success. The plan shows how the project will be carried out, measured, and monitored.

This quality plan defines the organization structure and the relationships between the partners so that there is a clear distinction of roles for all participants, and a clear procedure for how the project will be managed and followed up. It also contains the project time plan, including a timeframe for milestones and major deliverables.

Quality standards, including criteria and indicators are defined, and an evaluation framework, involving both formative and summative evaluation, is used to ensure quality and continuous improvement. An important aspect of the quality plan is the capacity for flexibility, allowing for modification or re-aligning of the project processes and objectives based on feedback and evaluation findings. All partners will be involved as part of the assessment process while delivering this project.

QP developed and approved at beginning of project to confirm major deliverables/milestone acceptance criteria and manage approved project processes.

4 WP 3: Quality|

2 Project Organization and Responsibilities

2.1 Organization structure - roles

Management team - The project is led by a management team made up of one representative from each of the partner countries. Members of this team participate in all partner meetings as well as monthly Skype meetings. They are also responsible for coordinating communication with their industry and associate partners as well as their other team members. The Project Manager, responsible for overall project management, leads this team. Team members are: Susanna Saari (TUAS), Daniel Binder (FH Joanneum), Harprit Thacker (UCB), Donna Dvorak (IHM), Christian Husak (CHC), Steffen Lange (HNEE)

HEI (Higher Education Institutes) Coordinators – Members of the management team also act as coordinators in their respective countriesand are responsible for managing the completion of the tasks and subtasks outlined in their work packages as well as reporting to the Project Manager.

HEI Team members – Responsible for completing the tasks and subtasks of the WPs assigned to their team. In addition, one member of each team attends the partner meetings along with the coordinator from their team.

Industry partners – Each country in the project is represented by two industry partners. Industry partners provide research data in the form of interviews and surveys as well as case study material for development of the handbook, participating also in focus groups as part of the research work package. An industry partner representative also attends the national-level WelDest camp workshop to be held in pilot destinations, participates in national meetings to discuss and advise on content issues, and takes part in the international networking and benchmarking event and seminar in Berlin.

Associate partners –Each country in the project is represented by 1-2 associate partners who may provide research data and material, but whose main role is in disseminating and sustaining the outcomes of WelDest. Associate partners also participate in local meetings to discuss and advise on content issues.

External auditors – Responsible for assessing the content and usability of the e-handbookand course design.

2.2 Division of Work

To achieve the objectives of WelDest, work is divided into 6 work packages, each with specific subtasks. The list of WPs and subtasks can be seen, along with the project time plan and duration of each WP and specific subtask in chart 1 in the appendix.

Lead of WP 1: TUAS, Finland, Susanna Saari.WP 1 covers the following activities & methods in the listed subtasks:(ST= Subtask, name of the leader in brackets)

5 WP 3: Quality|

ST 1 Project implementation plan (TUAS) ST2 Financial management (paid to partners in 30%, 30%,40% parts), (TUAS) ST3 Contract process , (TUAS) ST4 Reports for TUAS (Financial and Functional from partners), (TUAS) ST5 Reports for EU (progress report & Final report), (TUAS) ST6 Tenders when needed, (TUAS) ST7 Partner meetings, agendas, (TUAS) ST8 Partner meetings, minutes and action points lists (UCB)

Lead of WP 2: TUAS, Finland, Susanna Saari (work redistributed after removal of UOP team)WP 2 covers the following activities & methods in the listed subtasks:

ST 1 Dissemination plan (TUAS) ST 2 Dissemination follow up templates (UCB) ST 3 Blog (on-going), (FH JOANNEUM) ST 4 Logo (FH JOANNEUM) ST 5 Power point presentations (about WelDest project & blank template) (FH JOANNEUM) ST 6 Project Newsletters & mailing lists (UCB) ST 7 Leaflet (language versions (EN/EN, EN/FI, EN/GE, EN/HU, EN/CZ) (FH JOANNEUM, all responsible for

their own language versions) ST 8 International networking & benchmarking event with seminar (HNEE) ST 9 WelDest Camp workshop on destination development (IHM, all responsible for the national set-up) ST 10 Media contacts (press releases, interviews etc.) (IHM)

Lead of WP 3: Donna Dvorak, The Institute of Hospitality Management in Prague (IHM), Czech RepublicWP 3 covers the following activities & methods in the listed subtasks:

ST 1 Quality plan (for internal & external project quality) (IHM) ST 2 WelDest meeting/workshop quality questionnaire & summary, (IHM) ST 3 WelDest process quality follow up with mid & end project reports, (IHM) ST 4 Quality assessment of educational materials (eHandbook), (UCB)

[WP 1, TUAS takes care of all tenders if needed for subcontracting quality experts]

Lead of WP 4: FH JOANNEUM, Austria, Prof. Kai IllingWP 4 covers the following activities & methods in the listed subtasks:

ST1 Research methodology plan (FH JOANNEUM) ST 2 Destination and consumer needs analyses, primary research (FH JOANNEUM) ST 3 Current status of health and well-being destinations, secondary research (HNEE) ST 4 Stakeholder research OST (CHC) ST 5 Summary and framework for health & well-being destination elements (TUAS)

Lead of WP 5: Christian Husak Consultancy (CHC), AustriaWP 5 covers the following activities & methods in the listed subtasks:

ST 1 Development plan for educational material (CHC) ST 2 Creation of eHandbook (FH JOANNEUM) ST 3 Course design development including educator material (TUAS) ST 4 Piloting of the educational material and the course design (CHC)

6 WP 3: Quality|

ST 5 Improvements and amendments of the educational material (CHC)

Lead of WP 6: UCB, England, Harprit ThackerWP 6 covers the following activities & methods in the listed subtasks:

ST 1 Exploitation plan (UCB) ST 2 Exploitation follow up templates (UCB) ST 3 Articles in national, professional magazines (ALL PARTNERS) ST 4 Conference / seminar participation with a paper and scientific article (TUAS) ST 5 End project seminar & webinar (TUAS) ST 6 Exploitation of the educational material and other outcomes (UCB)

3 Project Quality Control

3.1 Quality Requirements

This section includes a list of the methods that will be used to ensure the required level of quality. Quality management is divided into three categories:

Plans Performance quality - preventative activities, evaluation of project deliverables) Process quality

Evaluation instruments and mechanisms used:

Risk assessment analysis Quality/satisfaction questionnaires for partner meetings Quality/satisfaction questionnaires for events (workshops, WelDest camp) Peer review of deliverables Expert review of deliverables (external audits) WP status reports (three times per year) Focus sessions during partner (and Skype) meetings Interim and end project progress reports Cost report analysis

3.2 Plans

Draft versions of the implementation plans for each WP are presented at the first partner meeting. The drafts are discussed and approved at the meeting by general consensus after feedback and alterations. The plans are then updated by the WP leaders and reviewed by the partners until final acceptance. There will be a minimum of two rounds of feedback and alterations for each plan. Updates to the plans should be included in WP status reports.

7 WP 3: Quality|

The WP implementation plans will include qualitative and quantitative indicators for project progress which will be followed and reported on a regular basis as part of internal project reporting. Plans also include target dates for submission of deliverables.Plans are stored in the Optima workspace.

Target dates for final versionsPlan Target DateProject implementation plan December 2012Dissemination plan December 2012Quality plan December 2012Research methodology plan December 2012Research methodology plan 2 – original plan to be revised after completion of the needs analysis March 2013Development plan for educational material January 2014Exploitation plan December 2012

3.3 Performance Quality

3.3.1 Preventative Activities – Risk Management

These are techniques to be used early in life-cycle of the project to minimize risks.

A risk assessment matrix (see appendix 2 for original version) has been developed for the various project activities related to work involved in the project WPs. For each of the activities, the following are identified:

● Risks● Their potential impact on the project● Effect (level of impact)● Probability of occurrence

The level of impact is assessed with a value of “negligible, marginal, critical or uncontrollable.” Probability is assessed with a value of „low, medium, or high risk.” Following the calculation of risk exposure, the proposed solution or mitigation strategies are presented.

Work package leaders are responsible for constantly monitoring and assessing risks related to their respective work packages, paying special attention to the higher level risks. An interactive version of the matrix is posted separately on Optima and is accessible to all the project team members to allow for tracking of status and monitoring of the evolution of the mitigation strategies. Evaluation of the risks as well as strategies and updates will be included as part of the WP status reports and will be discussed with each team separately at partner meetings.

3.3.2 Evaluation of Project Deliverables - Outputs

Table 1 contains the key project deliverables to be measured for satisfactory quality level. Deliverables are measured and approved using instruments that include meeting evaluation forms, event evaluation forms, a peer review process, and expert review process - external audits.

Meeting and event evaluations – to be done by all participants. Quantitative and qualitative data collected through questionnaires using a digital survey tool that allows respondents to remain anonymous. A 5-point Likert scale is used wherever possible. A summary of the data collected, including suggestions for changes and improvements will be

8 WP 3: Quality|

compiled after each meeting or event. A standard questionnaire form is used for partner meetings, and specific questionnaires are developed for each event.

Peer review of deliverables – For deliverables to be evaluated using this instrument, each is reviewed by a partner, who is nominated by the WP leader and not involved in the production of the deliverable. The deliverable is sent to the WP leader at least 15 days before the expected delivery date. The WP leader immediately forwards it to the reviewer for evaluation. The reviewer verifies whether the deliverable satisfies the requirements, description, or objective; identifies deviations from requirements or problems; and suggests improvements to author. The reviewer returns the evaluation to the author, whose responsibility it is to either accept or reject the suggestions and decide what actions are to be undertaken. The deliverable is then submitted to the WP leader along with the reviewer’s evaluation for final approval or approval contingent on further modification. For certain deliverables the peer review process may be carried out by multiple reviewers to ensure quality.

Peer review evaluations should include the following information:

General comments: Thoroughness of contents Correspondence to project objectives

Specific comments: Relevance Format(layout, spelling, etc.)

Suggested actions: The following changes should be implemented Missing information Further improvements

A template to be used by reviewers for writing peer review evaluations can be found in the WP 3 folder in Optima.

Expert review of deliverables - external audits - 3 to 5 external specialists will be subcontracted to quality audit the outcomes of WP 5. The specialists will be representing different area of knowledge (e.g. eLearning, destination/regional development, tourism development, health and well-being) and will check on the content and usability of the e-Handbook& course design and the Self-assessment & development tool. They will be named later as this is a procedure that involves tenders. The instructions and auditing documents will be created by the lead of WP 5as part of WelDest. The feedback from the audit will be used to improve the final e-Handbook and its attachments.

9 WP 3: Quality|

Author submits deliverable to WP

leader (or directly to reviewer)

WP leader forwards deliverable to

nominated reviewer

10 WP 3: Quality|

Table 1: Evaluation Methods for Specific Deliverables

Work Package Deliverable Method of Evaluation1 -Project Management Lead : TUAS, Finland, Susanna Saari

WelDest Meetings (partner meetings only) Partner meeting evaluation forms, focus sessionsProject meeting agendas To be assessed as part of partner meeting evaluation form

Interim and final EACEA reports Peer review of deliverable2 – DisseminationLead: TUAS, Finland, Susanna Saari

Dissemination plan

Draft discussed and approved by general consensusat kickoff meeting, at least 2 rounds of feedback and alterations before approval of final version

WelDest newsletters Peer review of deliverableWelDest leaflet Peer review of deliverable

International networking and benchmarking event and seminar

Plan for the event to be drafted and peer-reviewedSatisfaction evaluation form for events - specific form for the event

WelDest Camp workshops for destination developmentPlan for the event to be drafted and peer-reviewed Satisfaction evaluation form for events

3 – QualityLead: IHM, Czech Republic, Donna Dvorak

Quality plan Draft discussed and approved by general consensusat kickoff meeting, at least 2 rounds of feedback and alterations before approval of final version

Quality assessment of educational materials Peer review of deliverable3 to 5 external specialists subcontracted to quality audit the outcomes of WP 5.

4 - ResearchLead: FH Joanneaum, Austria, Prof. Kai Illing

Research methodology plan Draft discussed and approved by general consensusat kickoff meeting, at least 2 rounds of feedback and alterations before approval of final version.Plan to be revised again with 2 rounds of feedback and alternations after completion of needs analysis

Summary report on destination and consumer needs analyses, primary research

Peer review of deliverable

Summary report on Current status of health and well-being destinations, secondary research

Peer review of deliverable

Summary report on stakeholder research Peer review of deliverableSummary report on framework for health and well-being destination elements

Peer review of deliverable

5 - Creation of Educational MaterialLead: Christian Husak and Consultancy, Austria

Creation of e-handbook and self-assessment and development tool

Peer review of deliverable, pilot testing with feedback, external auditors

6- ExploitationLead:UCB, England, Harprit Thacker

Exploitation plan Draft discussed and approved by general consensus at kickoff meeting, 2 rounds of feedback and alterations before approval of final version

End project seminar and webinar Satisfaction evaluation form for events - specific form for the event

3.4 Process Quality

11 WP 3: Quality|

Process quality will be monitored through summary reports, which are based on meeting or event questionnaires and focus sessions, WP status reports, and evaluation reports from external audits. Process quality involves

Project progress meetings Information about work progress

Focus sessions – These sessions will allow for more in-depth monitoring of key questions related to the project. They will also provide a forum for complaints, suggestions, and satisfaction or dissatisfaction with changes and progress. Quality will be included in the agendas, and focus sessions will take place at both partner meetings and Skype meetings.

WP status reports - Status reports ensure the quality of the WPs and should be submitted by each WP leader three times per years to the Quality WP lead in order to compile the interim and end project progress reports. WP status reports shall be structured as follows:

Introduction Project activities - (summarize activities in the previous reporting period, list deliverables produced,

presentations given, meetings attended), WP status - (including subtask reporting*) (Describe the WP started, continued or completed during reporting

period. Summarize their status – e.g. in progress, completed, etc). (Status should include reference to the risk assessment matrix – noting any updates, new risks or changes, continuing risks, and strategies that have been implemented to reduce risks).

Project deliverables status–(list deliverables and summarize their status [started, delivered, under evaluation, accepted)

Comments on the project – (general issues arising from activities performed during the reporting period, new risks that have arisen during the reporting period)

Project work plan – (forecast what progress is expected in next period and highlight any changes of plan with respect to the quality plan and last status report)

*Subtask reporting – subtask leaders will send their own status reports to the lead of each WP they are involved in at least 10 days before the submission of the WP status report.

Status Report Date1 January 20132 May 20133 September 20134 January 20145 May 20146 September 2014

4 Communication

12 WP 3: Quality|

4.1 Meetings

Meetings are important to ensure the progress of WelDest and to maintain the technical and social relationships among the partners in the project.

WelDest meeting types and topics to be covered:

Partner meetings - all relevant WPs on agenda

Location DateAustria October 2012CzechRepublic May 2013Belgium October 2013Germany March 2014UK June 2014Finland September 2014

Skype meetings - held at three levels: 1) WelDest management issues, with only management team participating 2) WelDest content issues where e.g. WPs are discussed and all the relevant members are attending3) WelDest WP issues – one-on-one meetings between WP leaders and the project coordinator

National meetings - conducted by HEI to industry and associate members to discuss and advise on content related issues.

Decisions in all international partner meetings will be made based on simple majority should consensus not be reached. If the distribution of votes is even, the project manager’s vote decides. If the national meetings will not reach consensus, the matter should be taken to the international (Skype) meeting for decision making.

4.2 Exchange of Documents, Correspondence

All documents and computer data files should be exchanged as much as possible viathe Optima workspace. Colleagues should post in the general discussion area when a file has been added or changed. Colleagues are alerted to new messages through a message sent to their work email.

5 Documents

5.1 Document Storage and Accessiblity

All documents are to be stored in the Optima workspace for visibility and use for all partners when needed.Documents are to be stored in the following folders (folders may be added or updated as needed):

13 WP 3: Quality|

Folder/Content Introduction to WelDest and Contacts Full proposal and support documents - the project application and official documents related to the application EACEA agreements and subcontracts - the official project award, evaluation feedback related to the

application Reporting folders–LLPProject handbook 2012 and official reports submitted to the EACEA as part of the project

management process Partner meetings 2012-2014 - Agendas, minutes, presentations, working papers for all partner meetings and

Skype meetings Work packages 1-6 - Details of the working documents and outputs related to each work package Photos, etc.

5.2 Outputs

Project outputs will be stored separately in the relevant folder in the Optima workspace as they are developed

5.3 Document Format

All documents will be saved in MS Word or MS Excel. A template (including font, built-in header, footer, page numbers, etc.) to be used for the creation of Word documents can be found posted as a separate document in the WP 3 folder in Optima.Final versions of documents should be marked as final and uploaded to Optima in read-only format.

5.4 Nomenclature of Documents:

All documents must be listed giving for each the issue date, its name, version number (if necessary), status, the author’s institution, and a sequential number to use as reference (R1,R2....Rn) in communication and correspondence. Documents should be named as follows:Date: yy.mm.ddDocument name: Chosen by author (the name should clearly identify the document by stating the purpose or information it contains)Version number: (v01, v02....)Status – (draft, final)Author’s institution: Authors should use the proper acronym for their institution (IHM, TUAS, UCB, FHJ, CHC)Reference number: R1, R2....Rn (any change to the document must be followed up with a new reference number)

Example: 2012-10-11-QualityPlan-v01-Draft-IHM-R1Example: 2012-11-01-PressRelease-FHJ-R6

In communication, the document can simply be referred to as Quality Plan R1 or Press Release R6.

14 WP 3: Quality|

Appendix 1 – Work packages and Subtasks

Work is divided into work packages and subtasks all with a lead partner and WP / sub task duration. Health & well-being in tourism destination (WelDest) 1 2 3 2013 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2014 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Work Packages and Tasks

Oc

t

No

v

Dec

Jan

Fe

b

Ma

r

Ap

r

Ma

y

Ju

n

Ju

l

Au

g

Se

p

Oc

t

No

v

Dec

Jan

Fe

b

Ma

r

Ap

r

Ma

y

Ju

n

Ju

l

Ag

u

Se

p

WP1 Project management 24 months

ST 1 Project implementation plan

ST2 Financial management 30 %     30 %  

ST3 Contract process

ST4 Reports for TUAS F&F F&F

ST5 Reports for EU                         1.10 .         30.9.

ST6 Tenders if/ when needed                                                

ST7 Partner meetings, agendas   PM/AT           PM/CZ         PM/HU         PM/DE     PM/UK     PM/FI

ST8 Partner meetings, minutes                                                

Skype meetings to take place once a month S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.     S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.     S.

WP 2 Dissemination 24 months

ST 1 Dissemination plan

ST 2 Dissemination follow up templates

ST 3 Blog

ST 4 Logo

ST 5 Power point presentations

ST 6 Project Newsletters & mailing lists from all partners 1 2 3 4 5

ST 7 Leaflet

ST 8 International event Berlin

ST 9 WelDest Camp workshop WS WS WS

ST 10 Media contacts

WP 3 Quality 24 months

ST 1 Quality plan

ST 2 WelDest meeting/workshop quality

ST 3 WelDest process quality

ST 4 Quality of outcomes

WP 4 Impl; research (16 months)

ST1 Research methodology plan

ST 2 Destination and consumer needs analyses (primary research) Plan

ST 3 Current status of H&WB destinations (secondary research) plan

ST 4 Stakeholder research (interviews and Open Space Technology)

ST 4 Summary and framework

WP 5 Impl: Creation of educational material (14 months)

ST 1 Development plan for educational material plan

ST 2 Creation of ehandbook

ST 3 Course design development including educator material

ST 4 Piloting of the educational material and the course design

ST 5 Improvements and amendments of the educational material

WP 6 Exploitation (24 months)

ST 1 exploitation plan plan

ST 2 exploitation follow up templates

ST 3 An article in a national, professional magazine

ST 4 Conference participation with an academic article

15 WP 3: Quality|

ST 5 End project seminar y.2014 with a webinar call for papers

call for papers Finland

ST 6 Exploitation of the educational material and other outcomes

16 WP 3: Quality|

Appendix 2 – Risk Assessment Matrix

RISK ANALYSISPROJECT ACTIVITIES PROBLEM/RISK POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE

PROJECTLEVEL OF IMPACT PROBABILITY ELIMINATION OF THE RISK

WP1Project Management

R1.1 Risks stemming from multidisciplinary nature of partners

Failure to successfully transfer knowledge and experience from academia to the industry partners

Critical Medium Smart and continuing communication with all partners

R1.2 Underestimation of time needed to produce deliverables

Tasks not completed / Deliverables not submitted on time

Critical Medium Ensure the successful completion of the activities and the validity of their results; Project management ensure timely submission of deliverables

R1.3 Underestimation of effort needed to complete activities

Resource / Budget overrun / Timetable overrun

Critical Low Management structured so as to closely monitor resource/budget consumption – take corrective actions wherever necessary

R1.4 Lack of experience and qualifications of staff involved

Results of low quality Critical Low All partners commit sufficient knowledge and experience

R1.5 Issues related to partners communication

Co-ordination problems / Disputes among partners

Critical / Marginal Low Communication plan as a part of Project implementation plan

17 WP 3: Quality | ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014

WP 2Dissemination

R2.1. Dissemination activities fail to target the correct audiences.

The project may fail to get the expected end user satisfaction

Critical Medium Preparation of appropriate dissemination materials. Monitor feedback from dissemination activities

WP 2Dissemination

R2.2. Poor dissemination towards the general public

The project may fail to get the wide acceptance and the participation of the end Users

Critical Medium Preparation of appropriate dissemination materials. Monitor feedback from dissemination activities

R2.3. Poor common promotion and dissemination actions

Failure to establish a common identity of project as well as failure to systematically expose the knowledge and experience gained of the relevant EU projects to the relevant end users group

Marginal Low Dissemination related ideas, such as make use of a range of tools in order to effectively promote and disseminates the project´s results

WP 3Quality

R3.1. Lack of experience and qualifications of staff involved

Low quality of Quality plan and all quality processes

Critical Medium All partners commit sufficient knowledge and experience

R3.2. Issues related to partner communication

Co-ordination problems Critical Low Communication plan as a part of Project implementation plan and Quality plan

R3.3. Selection of unsuitable external specialists to audit quality

Failure to produce quality eHandbook&course design and the Self/assessment & development tool

Critical Medium Setting up the experience with similar kind of materials as the main condition for choice suitable external specialists to audit quality

18 WP 3: Quality | ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014

WP 4Research

R4.1. Lack of experience with primary and secondary analysis

Setting up inappropriate methodology

Critical Low All partners commit sufficient knowledge and experience

R4.2. Issues related to partners communication

Co-ordination problems / Collection of incorrect data

Critical Low Communication plan as a part of Project implementation plan and Research methodology plan

R4.3. Selection of wrong destinations in each country

Obtaining incomparable data Critical Medium Pilot research by the partners. All teams working with same definition and core indicators of H&WB destination

WP 5Creation of Educational

material

Lack of sufficient quality information resulting from the research phase

Poor quality of e-Handbook&course design and the Self/assessment & development tool

Critical Medium Project management ensure timely submission of deliverables of each WP

Lack of time Low quality of e-Handbook&course design and the Self/assessment & development tool

Critical Low Project management ensure compliance of time plan

Other requests from the partners countries

Different level (range) of use of Educational materials by the partners, tourism experts, etc. in each country

Critical Low Communication with the industry partners about their needs and expectation. Outcomes of WP4/ST2 Destination and consumer needs analyses, primary research

19 WP 3: Quality | ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014

WP 6Exploitation

Lack of time Materials may not be seen as current. Material will not reach all target groups.

Critical Low Project management ensure compliance of time plan

Poor target market selection

Information distribution will be limited

Critical Medium Defining target groups and methods to reach them

RISK EXPOSURE

20 WP 3: Quality | ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014

IMPACTPROBABILITY

HIGH MEDIUM LOWUNCOTROLLABLE High High MediumCRITICAL High Medium MediumMARGINAL Medium Medium LowNEGLIGIBLE Medium Low Low