Despite every organisation is eager to join as many as possible project proposals and is more than happy when these projects are financed by the EU Commission, it might happen that, during the project implementation, problems arise, and this so much wanted participation weakens.
Let’s give an example drawn from our recent experience.
After about one year of project implementation, out of two years duration, one partner starts stepping away from the project activities. This is shown by less engagement in the e-mail communication, by last minute withdrawal from online meetings, by increasing delays in preparing the material due in the project development phase. When asked about this lack of investment the partner shares issues related to lack of staff available, new national regulation affecting the company, matters related to the Covid19 situation, etc. The only referent project worker, who is the one delivering tasks, resigns and the coordinator loses the unique contact person of this partner. The coordinator shares the sensation that the partner wants to leave the project and withdraw, though there is no official communication yet since it does not even respond to e-mail messages. The work done so far in the first year covers the first financial instalment which the partner has received thus, at least, the partner has addressed its duties according to the economic support received. However, the company is not sending the related timesheets to fully show evidence of how the money received has been used, therefore the coordinator is afraid that the first instalment given to this partner will not be acknowledged by the Executive Agency since evidence of working timesheets are not available.
How shall a coordinating project manager address this issue? What can be possibly done to unravel this managerial knot?
If we could consult this project manager, we would first suggest getting a hold of the partner by phone. In the case of direct voice communication, the goal is to verify the intentions regarding proceeding with the project participation on the partner’s behalf and in obtaining the relevant timesheets for the job done. If this does not sort any outcome, an official mail towards the partner and the Executive Agency shall be taken into consideration and right afterward a direct contact with the Executive Agency to verify, if not done yet, what possible steps shall be considered. The Agency might have suggestions. Consider, however, that in some programs (Erasmus + is one of them) the relationship with partners is entrusted to the coordinator and not to the Managing Agency of the program which sings a contract exclusively with the project leader who is fully liable for what happens within the partnership.
If the partner does not react, it is wise not to lose any further precious time and start sharing the remaining tasks of the project among the rest of the partners. Considers that no official communication of withdrawal has been released and therefore the replacement with another similar partner of the same country is not an option (yet).
The consortium shall compensate and work also on the task of the ““silent”” partner. This might eventually last till the very end of the project duration given that, in the while, nothing new has happened and a solution cannot be negotiated. If the situation stays as such and the “silent” partner never reacts to any further stimuli, the project final report shall describe all the details of what has happened and, we are afraid, the money given to the ““silent”” partner might be lost due to the lack of formal evidence on the workload (timesheets) delivered. Legal procedures, to be done at international level, are always possible, though they might take time, energy, and financial effort to claim what in the end might be less than what invested in the legal act.