ORGANISATIONS
INDESIGNINGRESEARCH
GOVERNANCE
Quality Assurance & Risk Management Plan
CONSIDER Project
(GA number 288928)
Deliverable D6.4
30 April 2012
Authors
Micharikopoulos Dimitris
Tavlaki Elena
SIGNOSIS
1 General Introduction............................................................................................... 3
2 Quality Assurance Plan .......................................................................................... 4
2.1. Context of Quality Assurance ......................................................................... 4
2.1.1. Scope of Approval.................................................................................... 5
2.1.2. Responsibility for Quality.......................................................................... 5
2.1.3. Quality Plan Review ................................................................................. 7
2.2. DELIVERABLES AND DATA QUALITY CONTROL PROCESS .................... 7
2.2.1. Document referencing and template ........................................................ 8
2.2.2. Deliverables Layout.................................................................................. 9
2.2.3. Data Communication protocols ................................................................ 9
2.2.4. Dissemination Event Scheduling and Reporting ...................................... 9
2.2.5. Quality Requirement Definition .............................................................. 10
2.2.6. Production Procedure ............................................................................ 11
2.2.7. Nomination of reviewers......................................................................... 11
2.2.8. Review procedure .................................................................................. 11
2.3. CORRECTIVE AND PREVENTATIVE ACTIONS ........................................ 13
2.4. CONTROL OF QUALITY RECORDS........................................................... 14
2.5. INTERNAL QUALITY AUDITS ..................................................................... 14
3 Risk Management Plan ........................................................................................ 16
Annex I: Internal Reports Template and Codification ................................................ 21
Annex II: Deliverable Presentation Standard ............................................................. 29
Annex III: Peer Review Report template.................................................................... 37
Annex IV: External Reviewer's Confidentiality Declaration........................................ 42
Annex V: Deliverables reviewers list.......................................................................... 45
Annex VI: Non-Conformity Report on a Deliverable .................................................. 47
Annex VII: Corrective and Preventive Action Request .............................................. 50
Annex VIII: Internal Audit Report ............................................................................... 53
Annex IX: Template Risk Statement Form................................................................. 56
FP7 - 288928
1 General Introduction
The CONSIDER project is a research project implemented in the context of the 7th
EU Framework Programme, in Science in Society strand. Its main focus is the
participation of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in research with a view to broaden
and strengthen this participation. Broader stakeholder engagement in technical and
scientific research may be desirable for a variety of reasons. CSOs can be optimal
actors to realise the promise of participative research governance. Despite much
activity to stimulate and implement CSO participation in research, there is no
agreement on how to evaluate the success of participation.
The CONSIDER project will undertake conceptually sound and empirically rich
research to establish a model of CSO participation in research. This will contrast
theoretical views on benefits and limitations with empirical findings on the practice of
CSO participation. Based on a grid of analysis, the project will survey all FP7
research projects. It will investigate 30 relevant projects as in-depth case studies.
Using the conceptual grid of analysis and empirical data, a model of CSO
participation in research will be developed. This model, representing relationships
and causal effects of factors influencing CSO participation, will allow for comparative
analysis of such to determine the role they play in achieving participation objectives.
No such model currently exists, which renders it difficult to plan, implement and
evaluate CSO participation in research. Stakeholders requiring such a model include
researchers, research funders, policy makers and CSOs.
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 3
FP7 - 288928
Delivery Mo
WP date from nth Responsible
n N Annex I Deliverables Partner
1 1 30/06/2012 5 Glossary UL
1 2 31/07/2012 6 The theoretical landscape FUNDP
1 3 28/02/2013 13 Analytical Grid FUNDP
1 4 30/06/2013 17 Governance Models DMU
5 Methodology definition and observation
2 1 30/06/2012 tools KIT
2 2 31/01/2013 12 FP7 Survey report UL
2 3 31/05/2014 28 Main Findings Report UL
12 Framework for the Comparison of
Theories of CSO Participation in
3 1 31/01/2013 Research Governance KIT
24 Report on the analysis of theory and
practice of CSO participation in
3 2 31/01/2014 research governance FUNDP
30 Model of CSO Participation in
3 3 31/07/2014 Research Governance DMU
4 1 30/11/2014 34 Guidelines Handbook DMU
4 2 31/07/2014 30 Expert workshops proceedings UCL
5 1 30/04/2012 3 Dissemination Strategic Plan UCL
36 Project Dissemination Dossier and
5 2 31/01/2015 Engaging more CSOs UCL
5 3 31/01/2015 36 EC Presidency Activities Report SIGNOSIS
6 1 29/02/2012 1 Project Management Guide SIGNOSIS
6 2 31/01/2015 36 Project database of internal documents DMU
6 3 31/01/2015 36 Project Monitoring Report SIGNOSIS
3 Quality Assurance Plan & Risk
6 4 30/04/2012 Management Plan SIGNOSIS
6 5 31/07/2012 6 Project Website DMU
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 4
FP7 - 288928
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 5
FP7 - 288928
Within the framework of CONSIDER, two levels of documents are recognized, i.e.
external deliverable reports and internal reports. The external deliverable reports are
described in this part. A deliverable report in a project generally aims to provide
information concerning the research work, its progress or its results. Each and every
deliverable report should thus be carefully drafted with rich content, a clear structure
and a professional presentation. All project deliverable reports together should
comprise a set of informative material with continuity, clear interfacing and free of
information overlaps or gaps.
It is therefore important to ensure standardisation in the presentation and structure of
the deliverable report and adopt common standards for the development of their
contents. At the same time, it is important that the information is provided timely and
in relation to the particular phase of the projects development, in order to allow
smooth development of the consecutive work and deliverables dependent on
previously provided information.
Summarized, the three basic aspects for building quality into the project deliverables
reports are:
1. content,
2. appearance and structure,
3. prompt supply of information.
There will be a unique project document coding system, as indicated below:
Table 2: Types of CONSIDER documents
Document Document Type Type of Forms to be used
Code
D Deliverable Deliverable Template, Peer
Review Report, Summary of
main Feedback and Actions
taken, Non Conforming
Report
WP Working Papers Internal Report Template
PR Workpackages Plans and Progress Internal Report Template
Reports
M Minutes, Action Lists, Decision Lists Internal Report Template
C Correspondence between Partners Internal Report Template
L Legal documents Internal Report Template
COM Commercial documents Internal Report Template
GI Documents of general interest Internal Report Template
QA Quality Assurance, Reviews, Internal Review Report,
Inspections, Audits Corrective Actions Request
OTH Other subjects Internal Report Template
All official Consortium documents in the above table, except from the Deliverables,
are cumulatively characterised hereafter as Internal Reports (IR).
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 8
FP7 - 288928
files and communicating actions and all Partners shall classify their communications
according to sharepoint functions, in order to claim that the other participants have
consider them.
The project internal documents template and referencing scheme follows in Annex I.
Note, that official Deliverables have a different template and referencing scheme,
which is presented in the following section.
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 9
FP7 - 288928
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 10
FP7 - 288928
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 11
FP7 - 288928
forms the key-mechanism for monitoring compliance with the quality criteria
(described in section 3.6 of this deliverable). The degree of compliance is
characterized by assessing the indicators, summarized in table 3, which relate to the
defects or points that require amendments in the text. These indicators concern
categories of non-conformity and they are identified in this form during the deliverable
evaluation.
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 12
FP7 - 288928
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 13
FP7 - 288928
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 14
FP7 - 288928
discrepancies obsolete, within the appropriate time period. Follow-up actions will be
arranged, so as to ensure the effectiveness of the corrective actions. The results of
the Internal Quality Audits will be distributed to all Partners, related to the specific
WP.
The QAM will be responsible for the implementation of this procedure. In all other
cases, the progress of the project will be monitored by him through contacts (mainly
by email) with all the partners involved. All day to day and trivial barriers of the
project have to be dealt with in this way.
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 15
FP7 - 288928
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 16
FP7 - 288928
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 17
FP7 - 288928
CONSIDER responses
Risk assessment and management is an on-going task. Just because a certain set of
risks was identified at the beginning of the project or, even, during the design stage, it
does not mean that during the life of the project other risk/issues will not arise that
will affect partners to meet the goals of the project. As the Work Packages' activities
inter-relate to each other, it is very crucial to be able to deal with any deviations that
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 18
FP7 - 288928
might occur as they will affect the quality of the future work and the time-schedule of
the deliverables.
Part of effective risk management is the process of identifying and dealing with
issues as they occur. The following describes the Protocol for an on-going risk
management:
Identification of a risk Work Package Leader documents and describe the
risk, including the date and who reported it
Analysis of risk WP Leader and/or PM assesses how and to which level it
may affect the Consortiums capacity for completion of the Project
Determine the priority of the risk low, medium or high
Assign the problem to a partner/team member, and schedule a timeframe for
proposal of action to resolve it.
Track the status of resolution WP Leader and/or PM label it: open, in-
progress or closed.
Document the process by which the issue was resolved and share the finding
with partners. This will help the team to identify lessons that could be learnt
from the problem resolution.
The procedure and the action of risk mitigation will be reflected in a Risk Statement
Form, (Annex XI) that will be filled by each workpackage leader in close collaboration
with all partners involved in the specific workpackage, every six months, namely the
months 6, 12, 18, 24 and 30 of the project and will be part of the reporting of project
management to the European Commission.
Accordingly, an unforeseen threat that is considered at any time of the CONSIDERs
project implementation will use the same procedure.
Mitigation strategies for the main risks/threats that might take place in the WPs are
presented below:
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 19
FP7 - 288928
Strategy field and they have cooperated in similar projects in the past. They have already provided
for the development of glossary that would clarify the terminology and will establish a
common set of terms and concepts for the project.
Risk The data mining in FP7 projects doesn't result in a representative and diversified
sample of CSOs - Low response of CSOs to the field research
Work Package 2
Probability Medium
Mitigation The partners have already well established networks and links with a great number of
Strategy CSOs and therefore they are prepared, if necessary, to mobilize use them for this task
by integrating in the research experiences from other cases of CSOs who have
participated in research activities outside the FP7 projects. In addition by shortening
the questionnaire they will make it easy and more attractive for the CSOs to take part in
the field research.
Risk Some of the case studies analyzed showed that participation of CSOs in research had
Package 3
Probability High
Mitigation The development of the model(s) will adopt a bottom up approach, which will take into
Strategy consideration the conditions on which the expectations of CSOs from participation can
be met with a critical view on the idea of participation itself.
Risk The research findings of WPs 1, 2 and 3 are controversial and / or dubious on how to
address specific situations - No specific guidelines relevant to concrete situations could
be developed
Work Package 4
Probability Low
Mitigation The partners have wide experience on FP7 projects and on the requirements regarding
Strategy policy recommendations. The WP leader will prepare and agree with the leaders of the
other WPs the specific terms on how the findings shall provide input for the guidelines.
In addition the consortium will approach CSOs at an early stage and by informing them
continuously and inviting them to act as external advisors for CONSIDER, it will ensure
that the guidelines developed would be context specific and would be tested with CSOs
through specific examples.
Risk Low participation of CSOs and researchers in the workshops and other activities
organized
Work Package 5
Probability Low
Mitigation The CONSIDER consortium has strong institutional links to CSOs and to the research
Strategy community. This will guarantee adequate response to the events that will be organized.
However, synergies with relevant events and conferences will be explored too. A
special tool listing all events that CONSIDER could participate that will be updated
regularly has been uploaded in the Sharepoint platform and a special magazine will be
issued.
Risk Not keeping the schedule - Lack of coordination / communication
Probability Low
Work Package 6
Mitigation The Project Manager has significant experience in project management and therefore
Strategy the probability of that to occur is minimal. However, to mitigate such an unexpected
event, some p/m have been allocated to the partners to undertake management tasks.
If needed, more time will be spent from the whole consortium in dealing with delays.
Processes will be established and documented in a project management handbook,
delivery month 1 of the project. A special platform (Sharepoint) provided by KIT will
facilitate the exchange of information. Regular meetings and Skype conferences will
take place.
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 20
FP7 - 288928
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 21
FP7 - 288928
CIVILSOCIETY
ORGANISATIONS
INDESIGNINGRESEARCH
GOVERNANCE
<<Deliverable Title>>
<<Subtitle>>
CONSIDERProject
(GAnumber288928)
DeliverableD<<number>>
<<Date>>
Authors
<<Name1,FirstName1>>
<<Affiliation>>
<<Name2,FirstName2>>
<<Affiliation>>
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 22
FP7 - 288928
Table of Contents
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 23
FP7 - 288928
Executive Summary
Nomorethantwopages.Containsrelevantfact,figures,conclusions,recommendations.Notan
abstract,notanintroduction.
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 24
FP7 - 288928
Main Body
Sub-Heading 1
Sub-Heading 2
Sub-Heading 3
No more than three levels of headings should be used
References
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 25
FP7 - 288928
Note that file name should follow the agreed conventions i.e.:
Deliverable number- deliverable title- date of last modification- acronym of
organisation doing the last modification.
The date should take the form YYYY-MM-DD
There should be no blanks in file names, as these can cause problems when
uploading or making available on the web.
Example: D1.1-Glossary-2012-09-04-DMU.docx
The CONSIDER project will last three years. A lot of documents will be written and
read by all the participants. So it is necessary to define a template available for the
CONSIDER internal reports in order to facilitate administration and document
exchange.
This document contains some recommendations about the publication of CONSIDER
documents.
It aims at defining:
the elements that should always appear in a document. This document itself
could be used as template.
the naming of the resulting files.
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 26
FP7 - 288928
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 27
FP7 - 288928
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 28
FP7 - 288928
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 29
CIVILSOCIETY
ORGANISATIONS
INDESIGNINGRESEARCH
GOVERNANCE
<<Deliverable Title>>
<<Subtitle>>
CONSIDERProject
(GAnumber288928)
DeliverableD<<number>>
<<Date>>
Authors
<<Name1,FirstName1>>
<<Affiliation>>
<<Name2,FirstName2>>
<<Affiliation>>
QualityAssurance:
Name
QualityAssuranceManager
Reviewer1
Reviewer2
FP7 - 288928
List of abbreviations
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 31
FP7 - 288928
Table of contents
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 32
FP7 - 288928
List of Figures
List of Tables
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 33
FP7 - 288928
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 34
FP7 - 288928
Introduction
Chapters
Sub-Heading 1
Sub-Heading 2
Sub-Heading 3
No more than three levels of headings should be used
Conclusions
References
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 35
FP7 - 288928
Annex/es
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 36
FP7 - 288928
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 37
FP7 - 288928
CIVILSOCIETY
ORGANISATIONS
INDESIGNINGRESEARCH
GOVERNANCE
QualityAssurance:
Name
QualityChair
Reviewer1
Reviewer2
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 38
FP7 - 288928
Reviewers:
XXXXXXXX (Quality Chair) Organization name
YYYYYYYYY (Quality expert) Organization name
ZZZZZZZZZ (Quality expert) - Organization name
Suggested actions:
1. The following changes should be implemented
Comments of XXXXX
General comment
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 39
FP7 - 288928
Specific comments
Topic A: Completeness
Reviewer comment
Author response
Topic B: Accuracy
Reviewer comment
Author response
Reviewer comment
Author response
Topic D: Relevance
Reviewer comment
Author response
Reviewer comment
Author response
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 40
FP7 - 288928
Topic F: Depth
Reviewer comment
Author response
Reviewer comment
Author response
Topic H: Punctuality
Reviewer comment
Author response
QualityAssuranceandRiskManagementPlanforCONSIDER 41
Annex IV: External Reviewer's Confidentiality Declaration
FP7 - 288928
REVIEWER DETAILS
(Distribution: Reviewer, Project Manager).
All external reviewers should sign a confidentiality form in order to protect the project.
External reviewers are not be members of the consortium but are people who are
either experts in the specific subject covered by the deliverable report and/or
represent the stakeholders addressed by the deliverable.
DELIVERABLE REPORT:
WORKPACKAGE:
RESPONSIBLE PARTNER:
NAME OF REVIEWER:
ORGANISATION:
PROFESSION:
SHORT CV (up to 5 lines)
DECLARATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY
I hereby declare that I will treat all information, contained within the above mentioned
deliverable and which has been disclosed to me through the review of this deliverable
report, with due confidentiality.
Deliverabl
W
e due date Lead Quality Chair
P Title 1st Reviewer 2nd Reviewer
from Partner
n
Annex I
Ivelina
1 30/06/2012 Glossary UL Terry Martin Thomas Alam
Fedulova
The theoretical Bernd Carsten Stefan Bshen
1 31/07/2012 FUNDP Martin Revel
landscape Stahl
Simon
1 28/02/2013 Analytical Grid FUNDP Karen Bultitude Emilie Spruyt
Pfersdorf
Jean-Gabriel
1 30/06/2013 Governance Models DMU Philippe Goujon Stefan Bshen
Contamin
Methodology definition Bernd Carsten Karen Stephen
2 30/06/2012 KIT
and observation tools Stahl Bultitude Rainey
Simon Bernd Carsten
2 31/01/2013 FP7 Survey report UL Philippe Goujon
Pfersdorf Stahl
Bernd Carsten Philippe Goujon
2 31/05/2014 Main Findings Report UL Stefan Bshen
Stahl
Framework for the Stephen
Comparison of Rainey
Simon
3 31/01/2013 Theories of CSO KIT Martine Revel
Pfersdorf
Participation in
Research Governance
Report on the analysis Stefan Bshen
of theory and practice Kutoma
3 31/01/2014 FUNDP Martine Revel
of CSO participation in Wukumuma
research governance
Model of CSO Dimitris
3 31/07/2014 Participation in KIT Philippe Goujon Martine Revel Micharikopou-
Research Governance los
Dimitris Terry Martin
4 30/11/2014 Guidelines Handbook DMU Karen Bultitude Micharikopou-
los
Expert workshops Stephen
4 31/07/2014 UCL Elena Tavlaki Michael Raider
proceedings Rainey
Dissemination Ivelina Feulova
5 30/04/2012 UCL Simon Pfersdorf Elena Tavlaki
Strategic Plan
Dimitris Ivelina
Project Dissemination
5 31/01/2015 UCL Simon Pfersdorf Micharikopoul Fedulova
Dossier
os
EC Presidency SIGNO Michael Raider
5 31/01/2015 Terry Martin Kate Duffy
Activities Report SIS
Dimitris Stephen
Project database of
6 31/01/2015 DMU Kate Duffy Micharikopoul Rainey
internal documents
os
Quality Assurance Michael Raider
SIGNO Bernd Carsten
6 30/04/2012 Plan & Risk Philippe Goujon
SIS Stahl
Management Plan
6 31/7/2012 Project Website DMU Simon Pfersdorf Emilie Spruyt Kate Duffy
The Deliverable D6.1 will not be peer reviewed according to this Plan, as has been already
reviewed and submitted.
The Deliverable D6.3 due to its importance and administrative character will be reviewed by
the PCC.
CIVILSOCIETYORGANISATIONS
INDESIGNINGRESEARCH
GOVERNANCE
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
No Item & Deviation Decision Responsible Expected
Partner Date for
correction
CHECKED BY DATE
CIVILSOCIETYORGANISATIONS
INDESIGNINGRESEARCH
GOVERNANCE
Dated: ...............................
CIVILSOCIETYORGANISATIONS
INDESIGNINGRESEARCH
GOVERNANCE
PART 1
Deficiency
Details
Inspected by:
PART 2
CAUSE
PART 3
CORRECTIVE
ACTION
PART 4
FOLLOW UP
AND
CLOSE OUT
Name: Date:
Risk ID: 1
Status: Monitor
Date Identified:
Category:
Probability:
Owner:
Impact:
Description:
IMPACTS
Project Milestones:
Schedule:
Mitigation:
Contingency:
Risk ID: 1
Status: Monitor
Category: Schedule
Probability: Low
Impact: High
Description: Not following the project implementation description as presented in the DOW
document of the CONSIDER project
Schedule: if lead times are properly accounted for, any tasks or activities that are
dependent on the lack of coordination from the management of the project, the project will
be delayed. It is possible, that overall delays could be averted through proper planning and
redeployment of resources to other tasks.
Mitigation: The Project Manager has significant experience in project management and
therefore the probability of that to occur is minimal. However, to mitigate such an
unexpected event, some p/m have been allocated to the partners to undertake
management tasks. If needed, more time will be spent from the whole consortium in dealing
with delays. Processes will be established and documented in a project management
handbook, delivery month 1 of the project. The Sharepoint platform will facilitate the
exchange of information. Regular meetings will take place
Contingency: it has no occurrence during the implementation phase of the first ten months
of the project