Testing of Virtual Toolkit with Stakeholders

Abstract

The collected data reported in this document gives mainly positive feedback on Virtual Toolkit (IO2), highlighting some interesting and relevant elements that can be further developed in its final release. The group of respondents have a quite long average experience in managing inter-institutional projects and belong to the EU-defined main participants groups of Managers (22), Teachers/Trainers/Researchers/Youth workers (17), Technicians (3) and Administrative staff (5).

Of the 8 indicators outlined in the original ONE Meeting Project proposal, 5 were met, 3 not. The 4 reached indicators were Usefulness & Relevance, Impact on Virtual Transnational Collaboration, Willingness to recommend to a colleague or professional contact and Willingness to use the IO2 Virtual Toolkit by decision makers. Willingness to use Virtual Toolkit by decision makers was positive result, with room for improvement. In addition, the following 3 indicators which reached improvable result need a closer analysis. Impact on Managerial and Digital Competences (the target was 90%, we reached 82%). All respondents who gave less positive answers were highly experienced and they left a detailed response including tool suggestions to the open question. Impact on Transnational Project Design and Implementation (the target was 90%/we reached 64%). Less positive evaluations tended to come from respondents with higher degrees of experience. This may indicate that experienced project managers while already using a wide variety of digital tools in their daily work had higher expectations for the Virtual Toolkit. Willingness to use IO2 Virtual Toolkit by project managers (the target was 70%/we reached 51%) reached improvable results. According to the Net Promoter Score (NPS) tool (Reichheld, 2003), 55 % is generally seen as a good result in terms of product reception. The answers to the final open question provided valuable information. Half of the 48 respondents gave useful feedback which was analysed based on the themes that emerged from the data. These eight themes were identified: Appreciation for the Virtual Toolkit, Accessibility and Usability, Open source/fee based, Sustainability, Layout and Graphical design, Tips for improvement, Relevance (for target group) and Dissemination. Some themes recurred through different answers, some of them were unique to a specific response. There was also one new theme, GDPR issues, that was not asked in the survey but that was mentioned by several respondents. Since this theme was relevant for the ONE Meeting Project, it was added into the analysis of the data. When proceeding with the analysis, we grouped the themes found in the three areas of impact envisioned for the ONE Meeting Project: Methods and tools, Collaborative Project Management, Environmental Awareness & Sustainability. Some of the suggestions coming from the reviewers were highlighted and attributed to a priority level which was based on the issue how relevant they were for the “ONE Meeting Approach”. High priority was given to GDPR issues (adding a GDPR logo into each tool and a link to web pages were GDPR information is available) and Dissemination (Adding Virtual Toolkit in the European Lifelong Learning Platform) and Tips for Improvement (Create links from the table of content into each tool). Medium priority was given to Tips for improvement (Create anchors/links from the overview to the tools in page 5 in the Virtual Toolkit) and Sustainability (Ensure the sustainability of Virtual Toolkit after ONE Meeting project has ended).