I dare anyone of us to admit that, when purchasing any good, we are not looking for the quality of the product. Of course, we do! If the quality comes also with a fair price, then we are happy to proceed with buying the asset because we know we will get excellent value for our money.
Why should this not apply to how EU funded projects are delivered and how the final results should look like? Indeed, quality is one of the main concerns of project evaluators when it comes to discerning if a project proposal should be financed or not. Quality is searched in the way the bid was submitted, in how the project will be delivered, in which way the partnership will collaborate to achieve outcomes, in how the allocated finances will be used so to be valuable, and – finally – on how the project results will impact on the beneficiaries addressed by the implementation plan.
Quality in EU projects is all about impact, that is how the delivered results are affecting and influencing the problems which were initially addressed by the proposal. It is about the effective working methodology which the consortium shall choose and apply because the way partners work is propaedeutic to the qualitative feature of the outcomes. It is about how the tasks are shared, how competences and expertise of the participating organisations are involved and equally shared because this will enrich and stand out the innovative products/services which are foreseen. Quality is about the time management of a project delivery because delays create frustration and suspensions of resources while – on the opposite – too fast speed might implicate oversights and lack of attention for details. Finally, the attention for quality in a project entails the proper allotment of available money for the specifics of the program delivery, thus well and fully spending of resources while avoiding waste of public funds.
The care for quality in EU funded proposals implies the development of a specific plan since it is not the outcome of goodwill: “Quality is never an accident. It is always the result of intelligent effort” (John Ruskin). Besides the plan, it demands also a mindset for qualitative delivery, a passion for anything close to perfection, devotion for the rewarding feedback which comes from things that are simply “well done!”
In all cases, projects demand an internal set of quality monitoring activities and a referent, among the partners, who will guide and lead the rest of the team in the observing tasks. In some other cases, the EU programs demand, or at least allow, the engagement of an external evaluator, an expert who functions as a “critical, not biased friend”, not as a judge or a referee. This consultant is usually supporting the already quality monitoring task force of the consortium.
From our experience, the monitoring of a project’s quality focuses on an internal analysis about how the consortium works, the accomplishment of deliverables, their relatedness to what is expected and to the target they address. On an external level, the quality addresses levels of impact, the efficiency, and usefulness of the products, the satisfaction of users with regards to the project developed goods, the required feedback over work in progress project material.
Finally, to collect the information about the existing or not existing quality of all the above, organisations need to develop tools enabling the gathering of data which, once analysed, shall push the partnership to adopt the necessary changes so as to increase quality and reach the close to perfection level expected. The data collection tools can range between (semi-)structured interviews, focus group discussion, surveys and questionnaires, checklists, common observation, case studies. It is known that according to the type of assessment one is looking for, quantitative or qualitative data can be collected, and tools are shaped consequently.
Regardless of what Henry Ford stated once, “Quality means doing it right when no one is looking”, and we are confident that each partnership feels this way, the EU projects a manager is running need to be looked at, and often quite thoroughly. That’s why for the purpose of quality control the EU programs put some budget at their disposal. Sometimes not, but this does not dispense a project manager and the partnership to care for the matter.