EACEA | Technical Report (version July 2015)

ANNEX V

MODEL TECHNICAL REPORT

ERASMUS+: Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees

(EMJMD)

This report is submitted under the grant agreement number

- (e.g. “2014 - 1436”)

Version: July 2015

Part A

General information related to the report

  • The report must be submitted by the Coordinator[1] on behalf of the Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree consortium. The signature of the legal representative of the Coordinator in the Beneficiary Declaration (see part B below), confirms that a process of consultation and approval has been carried out within the consortium. Before submitting the report you should also read Chapter F Reports and further pre- financing requests of theEMJMDProject Handbook[2]:
  • Please ensure that the report contains all elements of the checklist(Part B) and confirm the coherency with the requirements.
  • An extract from the EACEA Mobility Tool (EMT) must be added as Annex 2 of this report. It must contain all relevant information for the students (with and without EMJMD scholarship) and for the scholars funded by the Erasmus+ Programme. For further information please refer to the EMT User Manual:
  • The original version of the report must be sent by the deadline specified in your Grant Agreement (date as per postmark) to the following address:

Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

Unit A3 – Erasmus+: Higher Education – Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees

Avenue du Bourget, 1

BOUR 02/29

BE-1049 Brussels/ Belgium

Please send the original report by registered post (or express courier), keeping a copy for your reference.

  • An electronic version of the submitted report must be sent by the deadline to
  • Please note that the Agency reserves the right to terminate the Agreement in the event of non-submission of the contractually required report in accordance with article II.16.3.1 (c) of the General Conditions of the Grant Agreement.
  • In accordance with the Grant Agreement, Article I.9.3, the assessment of the report will result in a numerical rating from 0 to 100. The mark given will reflect the quality of the project as well as the consortium's effective implementation of the project, taking into account:

- The EMJMD requirements

- The Award Criteria of the Call for Proposals (Relevance; Quality of the project design and implementation; Quality of the project team and the cooperation arrangements; Impact and dissemination)

- The "Description of the action" in Annex I of the grant agreement

At this stage (Technical report on progress) the rating is used as a means of providing feedback to the EMJMD consortium about its performance.

At the Final Report stage, projects scoring higher than 75 (score range 0-100) may be flagged as best practise. Projects scoring between 0 and 50 at Final Report stage will be subject to a reduction of the lump sum contribution to the consortium management costs in accordance with the Grant Agreement, Article I.9.3.

Part B

Checklist technical report

a. / The report is signed by the legal representative of the Coordinator in Part D (if the signatory is not the legal representative indicated to the Agency, an authorisation to sign on his/her behalf must be added) and has been sent to the address indicated on page 2.
b. / The Agency's template for reporting has been respected.
c. / An electronic version (compatible with Agency's system) of the report has been submitted to the EACEA mailbox
d. / Part C (Narrative part) of the report is enclosed
e. / Annexes indicated in part E are enclosed:
  1. Minutes of the Student Selection Committee
(signed by all members)
  1. Student and Scholar data extracted from the EMT (signed by the project contact person)

  1. Diploma(s) and diploma supplement template(s), if available

  1. Student Agreement (template)

  1. Consortium Agreement (signed copy)

NB: If one of the above requirements has not been respected, the Agency will reject the report as not admissible.

Part C

Narrative Part

1. Relevance
1.1 Attractiveness/internationalisation of the HEIs

a.) Number of student applications:

Origin of the candidates[3]
Programme countries
Applications per region / Number
Member States of the European Union (EU):
Non EU Programme Countries:
Total / 0
Partner countries
Applications per region / Number
Region 1: Western Balkans
Region 2: Eastern Partnership countries
Region 3: South-Mediterranean countries
Region 4: Russian Federation
Region 5: Andorra, Monaco, San Marino,
Vatican City State, Switzerland
Region 6: Asia
Region 7: Central Asia
Region 8: Latin America
Region 9: Iran, Iraq, Yemen
Region 10: South Africa
Region 11: ACP
Region 12: Industrialised Gulf Cooperation countries
Region 13: Other Industrialised countries
Total Applications per region / 0

Did the number and quality of the applications meet the consortium's expectations?

Yes No

If yes, briefly describe what your expectations for the quality of student applications were.

If not, give reasons and explain the strategy the consortium envisages to improve the attractiveness of the Master.

b.) Number of scholar applications/candidates:

Origin of the candidates
Programme countries
Applications per region / Number
Member States of the European Union (EU):
Non EU Programme Countries:
Total / 0
Partner countries
Applications per region / Number
Region 1: Western Balkans
Region 2: Eastern Partnership countries
Region 3: South-Mediterranean countries
Region 4: Russian Federation
Region 5: Andorra, Monaco, San Marino,
Vatican City State, Switzerland
Region 6: Asia
Region 7: Central Asia
Region 8: Latin America
Region 9: Iran, Iraq, Yemen
Region 10: South Africa
Region 11: ACP
Region 12: Industrialised Gulf Cooperation
countries
Region 13: Other Industrialised countries
Total Applications per region / 0

Did the number and quality of the applications meet the consortium's expectations?

Yes No

If yes, briefly describe what your expectations for the quality of the scholar applications were.

If not, give reasons and explain the strategy the consortium envisages to improve the attractiveness of the Master.

c.) International cooperation:

a)If you cooperate with partner country organisations/institutions (partners, associated partners, others), describe how the cooperation is progressing and how it is contributing to the internationalisation of the HEIs participating in the consortium so far.

1.2 Attractiveness/ internationalisation in the targeted region(s)[4]

a.) Student applications

Did the number and quality of the applications concerning the targeted region(s) meet the consortium's expectations?

Yes No

If yes, explain briefly what your expectations were.

If not, explain why and give information on the strategy envisaged by the consortium to improve the attractiveness of the master in the targeted region(s).

b.) International cooperation

Describe how your cooperation with organisations/institutions (partners, associated partners, others) from partner countries in the targeted region(s) is progressing. What added value does this cooperation bring to the EMJMD?

1.3 Integration of changes and developments in the specific academic field

a)How will the consortium guarantee the academic excellence and the innovative aspects of the course in its thematic area over the period of implementation? How will the course adapt to the changing needs and developments in the thematic area?

2. Quality of the project design and implementation

2.1 Jointness

a)Did the student selection develop as foreseen in the application?

Yes No

If not, describe any deviation from the original plan. Explain the reasons and the alternative actions taken.

Describe any problems / lessons learned / positive experiences.

b) The consortium must follow the minimum requirements and recommendations for student selection & scholarship management (i.e. Annex II of the Project Handbook).

Indicate problems or challenges, if any, in following these requirements.

Please add to the report:

  • As Annex 1: the minutes of the Student Selection Committee meeting(s) (signed by all its members).
  • As Annex 2: Student (including non-scholarship holders) and Scholar data extracted from the EMT.

c)How has the consortium set up the student guidance, examination, performance evaluation and appeal procedure?

d)Will the study programme progress according to the planned objectives in the application? (curriculum, academic calendars, mobility of students/scholars and staff, etc.)

Yes No

If not, describe any foreseen deviation from the initial plan. Explain the reasons for this and the alternative actions to be implemented.

Describe any problems, lessons learned, positive experiences.

e)Describe the strategy for the selection of scholars and guest lecturers. Have there been any problems/lessons learned/positive experiences? What added value will the selected scholars/guest lecturers bring to the course?

f)What will be the consortium's forthcoming actions (including student surveys) regarding internal and external quality assurance mechanisms?

Describe any problems, deviations from what was originally planned in the application, lessons learned and/or positive experiences related to the quality assurance mechanisms put in place so far.

g)Type of degree to be issued by the consortium:

Joint Degree

Double Degree

Multiple Degree

If you did not tick the Joint Degree option, please indicate if the consortium has plans to move towards a Joint Degree and the steps initiated in this regard.

Please add to the report:

  • As Annex 3: the templates of the diplomas to be awarded, including joint diploma supplement, if available.

h)What is the consortium's website domain?

The consortium must follow the minimum requirements for the website indicated in Annex II of the Project Handbook. Indicate problems or challenges, if any, in following these requirements.

2.2 Student issues

a)Which services have already been provided to the students?

Describe any problems, deviations from what was originally planned in the application, lessons learned and/or positive experiences related to the services provided so far?

b)The health and accident insurance for the students must comply with the minimum requirements for the health and accident insurance coverage of EMJMD students as established in Annex I of the Project Handbook. Indicate problems or challenges, if any, in following these requirements.

c)Declare any change/drop-out/replacement of EMJMD student scholarship holders. Explain the reasons.

Please add to the report:

  • As Annex 4: the template of the Student Agreement.

3. Quality of the project team and the cooperation arrangements

3.1 Organisation/ structure of the project team

a)Are the consortium governing bodies for management, administration and academic matters in place and operating as planned in the application (e.g. structure, task/role description, working methods, etc.)?

Yes No

If not, describe any deviation from the application. Explain the reasons and the alternative actions taken.

Describe any problems/lessons learned/positive experience.

3.2 Cooperation arrangements

a)Have the partner's role and duties, and human resources and logistics put in place as planned in the application?

Yes No

If not, describe any deviation from the application. Explain the reasons and the implemented solution(s).

Describe any problems, lessons learned, positive experiences.

b)Describe how financial resources will be allocated and managed within the consortium.

c)Explain how the management lump sum will be used and distributed among the members of the consortium.

d)Participation costs charged to Programme Country students: €(entire study period)

Participation costs charged to Partner Country students: €(entire study period)

e)If relevant, describe any problems/lessons learned/observations related to the grant (lump sums, participation costs and scholarship amounts).

Please add to the report:

  • As Annex 5: a copy of the signed Consortium Agreement.

4. Impact and dissemination

4.1 Promotion/Dissemination

a)What promotion and dissemination activities has the consortium undertaken so far?

Describe any problems, deviations from what was originally planned in the application, lessons learned and/or positive experiences related to the promotion and dissemination activities undertaken so far.

4.2 Financial sustainability

a)Was a business plan set up to precisely identify the total cost of the programme and the resources necessary to sustain it?

Yes No

If yes, please describe briefly the content of the business plan. (e.g. awareness of total cost to deliver the programmes, realistic participation costs, number of students (sponsorships) etc.).

If not, explain the consortium's reasons.

b)Has the consortium already thought about the future of the EMJMD after the end of the Erasmus+ funding? Will the consortium obtain complementary funding (from non-European Union sources)? If yes, please elaborate on this.

4.3 Employability

a)What has the consortium done so far to make connections with the world of work? (e.g. elements in the course curriculum, involvement of socio-economic actors, mobilisation of internships, career guidance services, trainings, events, etc.)

b)Does the consortium have mechanisms in place to trace the career paths of the graduates?

Yes No

If yes, describe them.

If not, please explain.

5. Any other observations

1

EACEA | Technical Report (version July 2015)

6. Other deviations from your application

Indicate those objectives/actions not mentioned in section C above which already deviate from the original objectives/actions in the application. Explain and justify the reasons and the alternative actions taken.

Planned objectives / Deviations and reasons / Alternative actions taken

1

EACEA | Technical Report (version July 2015)

Part D –

Beneficiary declaration

I, the undersigned, hereby declare that:

- the information contained in this report is accurate and in accordance with the facts;

-the student and scholar data extracted from the EACEA Mobility Tool (EMT) is accurate and duly updated to the timing of the report;

-the information has been checked and approved by all the consortium partners involved.

Signature of the Coordinator's legal representative[5]:

Name and position of the legal representative (in CAPITAL LETTERS):

Date of signature:

Signature and stamp of institution:

1

EACEA | Technical Report (version July 2015)

Part E – Annexes

Annex 1

Minutes of the Student Selection Committee

(signed by all members)

Annex 2

Student and Scholar data extracted from the EMT

(signed by the project contact person)

Ref.: EACEA Mobility Tool – User Manual

Annex 3

Diploma(s) and Diploma Supplement template(s)

Annex 4

Student Agreement (template)

Annex 5

Consortium Agreement

(signed copy)

1

[1]Institution responsible for the coordination and day-to-day management during the EMJMD implementation as stipulated in the general conditions of the grant agreement.

[2]Formerly referred to as Financial and Administrative Handbook.

[3]Check the list of countries per category in the Erasmus+ Programme Guide, pages 24 and 25.

[4] Applicable to EMJMD which have obtained additional scholarships for targeted region(s).

[5]If the signatory is not the legal representative as indicated to the Agency, add an authorisation to sign on his/her behalf.