Table of Contents
Comments
Commenters
| Evaluation Criteria | Questions Evaluators will be Considering | |
| Appropriateness and Fit to Programme Objectives and Overall Value to JISC Community – the extent to which the proposal addresses the issues and demands outlined in the call, and shows innovation as appropriate; the extent to which the project outcomes will be of overall value to the HE and research communities (25%). | Is the proposal in scope?
Does the bid clearly articulate its intentions? Does the proposal demonstrate that the project outputs meet a need and will result in benefits to the community? If appropriate, is the bid technologically innovative and sound? Is there evidence that the proposal has been developed in the context of institutional learning, research and/or information management strategies to ensure that project outputs can be embedded and sustained beyond the JISC funding period? Where appropriate, does the bid propose to take a service-oriented approach and adopt open standards to ensure that developments can be more easily taken up and reused elsewhere, and indicate the intent to work with the JISC e-Framework? If appropriate, does the bid discuss sustainability beyond project funding? |
|
| Quality of Proposal and Robustness of Workplan – the quality of the proposal will be assessed on the basis of the deliverables identified, and the evidence provided of how these will be achieved, including an assessment of the risks (25%). | Are there clear deliverables?
Is the IPR position clear and appropriate with regard to project outputs? Is the methodology for meeting the deliverables sound and achievable? Is there active engagement throughout the project to ensure a sustainable and embedded end-product, where applicable? Is the workplan robust in terms of project management arrangements? How will the success of the project be measured? Does the bid include a well-thought-through initial assessment of risks, which considers the project’s failure to deliver, and predictable consequences that are not necessarily positive? |
|
| Engagement with the Community – the degree to which the proposal demonstrates an openness and willingness to work with and share findings with the JISC community and to work in partnership with JISC in forward planning, dissemination and evaluation, and to continue to make available the findings beyond the project period (20%). | Does the bid propose engagement with project stakeholders and practitioners (if appropriate) throughout the life of the project?
Is a stakeholder mapping and/or user needs analysis provided? Does the bid propose an appropriate dissemination approach? Does it have an appropriate evaluation approach, e.g. talking to stakeholders? Does the bid demonstrate willingness to work in partnership with JISC in the dissemination and evaluation activities and to make available outputs beyond the funding period? |
|
| Value for Money – the value of the expected project outcomes, vis-à-vis the level of funding requested, institutional contributions; taking into account the level of innovation, chance of success and relevance to the target communities (15%). | When considering value for money, evaluators will refer to their assessment under the above evaluation criteria and compare this with the cost requested from JISC.
Does the bid discuss the quantitative and qualitative benefits to the project partners of undertaking the work? Given the benefits, are institutional contributions appropriate? (Individual calls will clarify the position with regard to the appropriateness of JISC funding for equipment and/or licences.) |
|
| Previous experience of the project team – evidence of the project team’s understanding of the technical and/or management issues involved, and of its ability to manage and deliver a successful project, for example through work done to date in the area or in related fields (15%).[1] | Does the bid demonstrate a realistic understanding of the scale of the task, both in terms of technical and management issues?
Does the bid demonstrate previous successful delivery and management of projects? Does the bid link the expertise of the team with the roles to be undertaken and the staffing budget? If the bid is from a consortium: i) have the partners provided evidence of their commitment in the form of supporting letters? ii) have the partners demonstrated how the work aligns with their objectives and priorities? iii) is it clear what the role of each partner is and how the actual or planned management structure, governance, decision-making and funding arrangements will function? |
|
[1] In the case of consortium proposals, the strength of the consortium will be considered as part of the project team criteria. This refers to evidence of the commitment shown by the consortium partners to the consortium and the proposed project, and the degree to which the work proposed is aligned with institutional strategies and is shown to be embedded within the mainstream of the consortium and with the collaborative partners’ priorities. Bidders may wish to refer to documents that exist such as partnership agreements, strategic plans etc. that the evaluation panel can obtain copies of upon request. Please do NOT include such documents as appendices to a bid.