Home

Validating Products (Portugal)

Posted May 2nd, 2007 by Maria Nunes
in
Domain:
Validating practices and tools
Brief overview:
Let's improve quality! What I and the others think about my products?


View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: esflive copim)
  • Methodology for quality analysis and products’ validation
  • The validation cycle
  • The validation experts’ profile
  • The added value of the validation process
  • The validation grid

New Validation Leaflet (PT).

Validation Leaflet (PT)

Added Value:
Products’ quality and social recognition. Contribution to the upgrade of products content.
Potential users:
ESF Managers
EQUAL Managers
products quality validation
A comma-separated list of terms describing this content. Example: funny, bungee jumping, "Company, Inc.".
AttachmentSize
COPIM_Validating Validation_PT.doc145 KB
Validating_PT.doc155 KB

Comments

What says the National Thematic Network Asylum, Equal Sweden ?

On September 7th, 2007 Emilia Arroz says:
We - the National Thematic Network Asylum, Equal Sweden -  have been following the highly interesting and professional work done by the Portuguese NSS concerning the development of a reliable and robust validation model for DPs and projects. We have also been given the opportunity to see it work in practice - as we have participated as observers in a validation session/workshop with DPs in Lisbon in May 2007.
 Our assesment is that the validation method is very useful, both for the more complex  Development partnerships in the Equal programme as for validating projects in other ESF programmes. For the first time we have a model developed in the frame of and adapted to a European programme. The validation model is systematic and well structured, involving the stakeholders and players concerned and, which is very important, it follows the logical time frame and process of the projects. There is also a well organised support network, with both internal and external facilitators with well defined roles and responsabilities. We strongly recommend the model to be used on a European level and for the new ESF-programmes.
 Christian Råbergh
National coordinator

Transferring Portuguese validation methodology to Czech Republic

On July 21st, 2007 Emilia Arroz says:

Looking for the best approach toward validation of innovative products under EQUAL without much previous experience, the Czech EQUAL Managing Authority decided to turn to the Portuguese model that has the best references and is considered to be an example of good practice arisen from EQUAL. In May 2007, we visited Portuguese MA and participated as observers in a validation session of one of the projects. Based on this experience, we decided to transfer the validation procedures for Czech DPs and NTNs. (One of the differences between EQUAL implementation in the Czech Republic and Portugal is that whereas in Portugal validated good practice is a necessary condition for a project in order to proceed into Action 3, in the Czech Republic we grant projects in EQUAL for Action 2 and 3 at the same time.) In our opinion, the Portuguese approach to product validation can produce very strong evidence of transferable good practice as well as is vital as a feedback at the stage of actually shaping and finalising the products. 

At the end of May we organised a seminar on validation for Czech DPs. The theoretical part, where the model of validation was introduced, was followed by a practical workshop that included a simulation of a validation session on a made-up project/product. As the outcome of the seminar we can see a strong interest of Czech project promoters. First “real” validation sessions should take part in September 2007. We shall give further feedback then. 

Renáta Haroková

Head of EQUAL Unit

Ministry of Labour and Social AffairsCzech Republic

Including users of the product in the validation process

On May 6th, 2007 Bev Trayner says:

On Friday I was an observer at a product validation in Portugal. It was interesting to see the way there were different groups with different perspectives validating the product with the same criteria. One group were colleagues in other areas, another group were "experts" and another group were potential users of the product.

 

I was disappointed not to see more end-users validating the product and when my own goes through the process in three weeks I really hope that the users of my product will be there to enrich the feedback.

Back to top