final evaluation report
Christos Nicolaides
Dear Meryem,
I have a few remarks to make about the project evaluation which I did not really like. These are comments related to the way this evaluation was contacted and the ethics and transparency YOU used when putting this report together.
1. Regarding the results of the evaluation you circulated do not reflect a true evaluation of this project. If someone partner wanted to influence the results all he had to do was to register 20-30 evaluations. Seven participants from Nigde and ten from Training Cons 2005 distorted the results of this evaluation. How true an evaluation can be when 17 out of the 29 evaluators come from two organisations? You know about statistics, so tell me ! You should have asked an equal number from every organisation to participate.
2. The fact that you included comments from the evaluators without giving the evaluated organisations the chance to respond, leaves them exposed and does not reflect the truth at all ! Some remarks can be considered as personal attacks which is very unethical. Some accuse partners for stealing. I could have been very harsh with my remarks but i respected the individuals I worked with for two years. Would you have liked if someone described what had happened in Nigde during the kick off meeting? If this remains as it is then I want to add some remarks which I will demand to be included.
3. In my opinion, the members of one organisation should NOT be allowed to evaluate their organisation for obvious reasons.
4. To be transparent, all evaluations must be distributed to all partners. You put together this final report and you could selectively include the comments and results that suited you most. Who guarantees us that you did not leave out remarks that expose you and your organisation?
Please don’t take this remarks personally but it is obvious that the results of this evaluation do not reflect reality and they are definately one sided. Also, the ethical level of this report is very low since personal attacks are noted in a document which will be accessible by some many people.
I am due to submit 'E8. COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION' of the final report which should be in line with the evaluation report. I can not though base my comments on something so one sided !
I expect you to correct this because it is right to h
Best Regards,
Christos Nicolaides
DekaPlus Business Services Ltd
Managing Director
Tel. +357-25760055/99378673
Fax +357-25760090
Pedro José Leiva Padilla
I totally agree that after two years, all our requests should be admitted. The final evaluation of the project is very important and will be reviewed by many people. We can not lose face to our agencies accusing each other.
For some partners was their first project, this movito should consider all requests from the other partners.
I'm not saying that things were getting better or worse, I can just give my opinion.
We should agree for proper evaluation.
From Leiva Formación, hope this is resolved in the best way possible. Remember that it is a multi-partner, and several countries. Everyone has the right to have access to everything related to our project. Including the good and bad reviews of it.
In our opinion, we should leave the evaluation in the hands of more experienced partners.
For us it was our first project, and I assume our mistakes, but also praised our achievements.
Thank you and I hope you understand and take into account our opinion.
We strongly disagree with such an assessment. They should evaluate the project itself. The work, no tours or cultural events. National agencies do not provide grants to go hiking.
It is intolerable that is not assessed under the same conditions.
As I said before, if a team plays with 20 players and another with 2, who will win the match?
I hope this is resolved soon. The final evaluation by Meryem not acceptable.
Mihaela Zabava
I am agree with Christos and Pedro.
This evaluation is one evaluation which not reflect reality. Shame.What mens this afirmation for REPERE "Low activity of this institution"?
Our Association participate at ALL activities and from the first activity we given suport for project and have volunteered from the begining.
I am not agree with this report which is incorrect and and not respected standards.
You better write final report than you lose time with this report. In this project all institution worked good not 2 and all rights are for all partners.
I applied for 12 mobility but somebody cut 4? without consulting me and now one nobody say REPERE "Low activity of this institution" and you put in report? For you is very relevant this answer.
If yes I will invite to continue my duties in project.
Good night,
MIHAELA ZABAVA - REPERE ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT
Vida Drąsutė
seeing your reaction and comments (I do agree totally with all of them and I have more :) but maybe this time I will keep silent :))) )
I suggest re-evaluation in open form, visible to every partner.
Each institution or evaluator has to think that this will be public form for National Agencies and other people too, so, we should write logical and true things (bad or good it is up to you) in a nice form.
REPERE worked a lot and it is really visible to all also they were participating everywhere and were active people, so, in this case it is not nice comment, really.
Also I would like to defend Trakai Education centre:
Trakai Education centre did totally all the works and every work on time or even before, so, if they did not speak English well (they used interpreters to seek qualitative and good project results) it shouldn't be a problem. This project is not all about communication in English and cultural activities, does somebody have other opinion? :)
If somebody think that language made communication bad, let's see first meeting photos... actually it is visible that it was the best communication between partners who did not speak English very well :) (the ones who saw photos can prove :))
From other side, I was active and I spoke in English... what I got... bum... So, it seems that each situation if you speak or not is bad :)
About others the same: some comments are real lie or revenge and jealousy.
We are a team and this was visible during the last dinner in Spain. Everybody were welcome but just almost everybody participated...
Everybody were happy about the project results and agreed to join new projects in the future.
So, after it, comments like that are strange.
Let's re-evaluate in open form the project process and results. Also as Christos suggested institution which makes evaluation can not evaluate itself. We can agree that from each institution 3-5 people will fill evaluation form (maybe it is not very fair seeing that the sizes of institutions are different, but then, as you suggested, we will get optimal results).
p.s. we can use the same form, just answers should be visible to all (so, we should include all our e-mail addresses). The form is prepared by eMundus, so, I can update it with one question as Meryem suggested (with evaluation of institutions) and then send to you.
If you agree, let me know.
Greetings from sunny Lithuania ;)
Vida
meryem nur
From: chri...@dekaplus.com
To: activelearni...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: final evaluation report
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:28:23 +0300
Dear Meryem,
I have a few remarks to make about the project evaluation which I did not really like. These are comments related to the way this evaluation was contacted and the ethics and transparency YOU used when putting this report together.
1. Regarding the results of the evaluation you circulated do not reflect a true evaluation of this project. If someone partner wanted to influence the results all he had to do was to register 20-30 evaluations. Seven participants from Nigde and ten from Training Cons 2005 distorted the results of this evaluation. How true an evaluation can be when 17 out of the 29 evaluators come from two organisations? You know about statistics, so tell me ! You should have asked an equal number from every organisation to participate. (I am agree with you, the number of the participants are very different from each Company. But, what can I do if they dont fill in the form. I waited so long before start to evaluate. and I called last day of the evaluation again and again. after this I really dont take any responsibility. I didnt limited any body to fill in.
2. The fact that you included comments from the evaluators without giving the evaluated organisations the chance to respond, leaves them exposed and does not reflect the truth at all ! Some remarks can be considered as personal attacks which is very unethical. Some accuse partners for stealing. I could have been very harsh with my remarks but i respected the individuals I worked with for two years. Would you have liked if someone described what had happened in Nigde during the kick off meeting? If this remains as it is then I want to add some remarks which I will demand to be included. (�f we give participants a change to respond, this wouldnt be an evaluation. This would be online disscussion. So this is not our purpose for the evaluation process.
Personal attack is one of risk of To impose this risk we used frequency. If somebody wanted to teel lies for someone this items rfrequency will be low.(Vida did this on her evaluations. Vida's evaluations doesnt have a scientific value for this reason)
3. In my opinion, the members of one organisation should NOT be allowed to evaluate their organisation for obvious reasons. (You should have told this opinion before the evaluation process. �f you had told this before the evaluation , I would have accept. But now it is impossible.)
4. To be transparent, all evaluations must be distributed to all partners. You put together this final report and you could selectively include the comments and results that suited you most. Who guarantees us that you did not leave out remarks that expose you and your organisation?
Please read the description of the evaluation form. we cant share the evaluations results with any of the company. This is not ethic.
We may show our results only official representer.
Please don�t take this remarks personally but it is obvious that the results of this evaluation do not reflect reality and they are definately one sided. Also, the ethical level of this report is very low since personal attacks are noted in a document which will be accessible by some many people.
I am not agree with you. the report presents only your opinions. We cant tell true or wrong. True or wrong side of this report might be search only authories if you want.
The evaluation is deffinitelly based on only your opinions.
I am due to submit 'E8. COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION' of the final report which should be in line with the evaluation report. I can not though base my comments on something so one sided !
I expect you to correct this because it is right to h
Best Regards,
Christos Nicolaides
DekaPlus Business Services Ltd
Managing Director
Tel. +357-25760055/99378673
Fax +357-25760090
meryem nur
As you told, the number of the participants are very different from each Company. But, what can I do if they didnt fill in the form. I waited so long before to start to evaluate. and I called last day of the evaluation again and again. after this I really dont take any responsibility. I didnt limited anybody to fill in.
You should have told this opinions before the evaluation process. �f you had told this before the evaluation , we might have accept. But now it is impossible.
Meryem
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:23:12 +0200
Subject: Re: final evaluation report
From: ord...@gmail.com
To: activelearni...@googlegroups.com
Dear all. The first thing to consider is that our project is based on the joint work of all partners. As rightly said Christos, project evaluation, should be available for all members. Also it is not the same as a team has 12 players and another only 2. Who would win this match?
I totally agree that after two years, all our requests should be admitted. The final evaluation of the project is very important and will be reviewed by many people. We can not lose face to our agencies accusing each other.
For some partners was their first project, this movito should consider all requests from the other partners.
I'm not saying that things were getting better or worse, I can just give my opinion.
We should agree for proper evaluation.
In our opinion, we should leave the evaluation in the hands of more experienced partners.
For us it was our first project, and I assume our mistakes, but also praised our achievements.
Thank you and I hope you understand and take into account our opinion.
We strongly disagree with such an assessment. They should evaluate the project itself. The work, no tours or cultural events. National agencies do not provide grants to go hiking.
It is intolerable that is not assessed under the same conditions.
As I said before, if a team plays with 20 players and another with 2, who will win the match?
I hope this is resolved soon. The final evaluation by Meryem not acceptable.
Dear Meryem,
I have a few remarks to make about the project evaluation which I did not really like. These are comments related to the way this evaluation was contacted and the ethics and transparency YOU used when putting this report together.
1. Regarding the results of the evaluation you circulated do not reflect a true evaluation of this project. If someone partner wanted to influence the results all he had to do was to register 20-30 evaluations. Seven participants from Nigde and ten from Training Cons 2005 distorted the results of this evaluation. How true an evaluation can be when 17 out of the 29 evaluators come from two organisations? You know about statistics, so tell me ! You should have asked an equal number from every organisation to participate.
2. The fact that you included comments from the evaluators without giving the evaluated organisations the chance to respond, leaves them exposed and does not reflect the truth at all ! Some remarks can be considered as personal attacks which is very unethical. Some accuse partners for stealing. I could have been very harsh with my remarks but i respected the individuals I worked with for two years. Would you have liked if someone described what had happened in Nigde during the kick off meeting? If this remains as it is then I want to add some remarks which I will demand to be included.
3. In my opinion, the members of one organisation should NOT be allowed to evaluate their organisation for obvious reasons.
4. To be transparent, all evaluations must be distributed to all partners. You put together this final report and you could selectively include the comments and results that suited you most. Who guarantees us that you did not leave out remarks that expose you and your organisation?
Please don�t take this remarks personally but it is obvious that the results of this evaluation do not reflect reality and they are definately one sided. Also, the ethical level of this report is very low since personal attacks are noted in a document which will be accessible by some many people.
I am due to submit 'E8. COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION' of the final report which should be in line with the evaluation report. I can not though base my comments on something so one sided !
I expect you to correct this because it is right to h
Best Regards,
Christos Nicolaides
DekaPlus Business Services Ltd
Managing Director
Tel. +357-25760055/99378673
Fax +357-25760090
meryem nur
The evaluation is deffinitelly objective. � didnt do an evaluation by myself. I only adited your opinions.
And there are some negative explations for the Turkish team. I dont understand why you cant see them.
Please be objective.
The evaluation is not mean to write only positive opinions. The negatives ones should be presented too.
In the report, The frequency value of item 'Low activity of this institution' is one. So, in an evaluation with 29 participants, this number is very insignificant.
Regards Meryem.
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:03:09 +0300
Subject: Re: final evaluation report
Dear friend,
I am agree with Christos and Pedro.
This evaluation is one evaluation which not reflect reality. Shame.What mens this afirmation for REPERE "Low activity of this institution"?
Our Association participate at ALL activities and from the first activity we given suport for project and have volunteered from the begining.
I am not agree with this report which is incorrect and and not respected standards.
You better write final report than you lose time with this report. In this project all institution worked good not 2 and all rights are for all partners.
I applied for 12 mobility but somebody cut 4? without consulting me and now one nobody say REPERE "Low activity of this institution" and you put in report? For you is very relevant this answer.
If yes I will invite to continue my duties in project.
Good night,
MIHAELA ZABAVA - REPERE ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT
Dear all. The first thing to consider is that our project is based on the joint work of all partners. As rightly said Christos, project evaluation, should be available for all members. Also it is not the same as a team has 12 players and another only 2. Who would win this match?
I totally agree that after two years, all our requests should be admitted. The final evaluation of the project is very important and will be reviewed by many people. We can not lose face to our agencies accusing each other.
For some partners was their first project, this movito should consider all requests from the other partners.
I'm not saying that things were getting better or worse, I can just give my opinion.
We should agree for proper evaluation.
From Leiva Formaci�n, hope this is resolved in the best way possible. Remember that it is a multi-partner, and several countries. Everyone has the right to have access to everything related to our project. Including the good and bad reviews of it.
In our opinion, we should leave the evaluation in the hands of more experienced partners.
For us it was our first project, and I assume our mistakes, but also praised our achievements.
Thank you and I hope you understand and take into account our opinion.
We strongly disagree with such an assessment. They should evaluate the project itself. The work, no tours or cultural events. National agencies do not provide grants to go hiking.
It is intolerable that is not assessed under the same conditions.
As I said before, if a team plays with 20 players and another with 2, who will win the match?
I hope this is resolved soon. The final evaluation by Meryem not acceptable.
Dear Meryem,
I have a few remarks to make about the project evaluation which I did not really like. These are comments related to the way this evaluation was contacted and the ethics and transparency YOU used when putting this report together.
1. Regarding the results of the evaluation you circulated do not reflect a true evaluation of this project. If someone partner wanted to influence the results all he had to do was to register 20-30 evaluations. Seven participants from Nigde and ten from Training Cons 2005 distorted the results of this evaluation. How true an evaluation can be when 17 out of the 29 evaluators come from two organisations? You know about statistics, so tell me ! You should have asked an equal number from every organisation to participate.
2. The fact that you included comments from the evaluators without giving the evaluated organisations the chance to respond, leaves them exposed and does not reflect the truth at all ! Some remarks can be considered as personal attacks which is very unethical. Some accuse partners for stealing. I could have been very harsh with my remarks but i respected the individuals I worked with for two years. Would you have liked if someone described what had happened in Nigde during the kick off meeting? If this remains as it is then I want to add some remarks which I will demand to be included.
3. In my opinion, the members of one organisation should NOT be allowed to evaluate their organisation for obvious reasons.
4. To be transparent, all evaluations must be distributed to all partners. You put together this final report and you could selectively include the comments and results that suited you most. Who guarantees us that you did not leave out remarks that expose you and your organisation?
Please don�t take this remarks personally but it is obvious that the results of this evaluation do not reflect reality and they are definately one sided. Also, the ethical level of this report is very low since personal attacks are noted in a document which will be accessible by some many people.
I am due to submit 'E8. COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION' of the final report which should be in line with the evaluation report. I can not though base my comments on something so one sided !
I expect you to correct this because it is right to h
Best Regards,
Christos Nicolaides
DekaPlus Business Services Ltd
Managing Director
Tel. +357-25760055/99378673
Fax +357-25760090
Pedro José Leiva Padilla
Later steps give instructions to follow.
Thanks to all
Dear Mihaela,
The evaluation is deffinitelly objective. ı didnt do an evaluation by myself. I only adited your opinions.
And there are some negative explations for the Turkish team. I dont understand why you cant see them.
Please be objective.
The evaluation is not mean to write only positive opinions. The negatives ones should be presented too.
In the report, The frequency value of item 'Low activity of this institution' is one. So, in an evaluation with 29 participants, this number is very insignificant.
Regards Meryem.
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:03:09 +0300From: zabava....@gmail.com
Subject: Re: final evaluation report
To: activelearni...@googlegroups.com
Dear friend,
I am agree with Christos and Pedro.
This evaluation is one evaluation which not reflect reality. Shame.What mens this afirmation for REPERE "Low activity of this institution"?
Our Association participate at ALL activities and from the first activity we given suport for project and have volunteered from the begining.
I am not agree with this report which is incorrect and and not respected standards.
You better write final report than you lose time with this report. In this project all institution worked good not 2 and all rights are for all partners.
I applied for 12 mobility but somebody cut 4? without consulting me and now one nobody say REPERE "Low activity of this institution" and you put in report? For you is very relevant this answer.
If yes I will invite to continue my duties in project.
Good night,
MIHAELA ZABAVA - REPERE ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT
2012/8/29 Pedro José Leiva Padilla <ord...@gmail.com>
Dear all. The first thing to consider is that our project is based on the joint work of all partners. As rightly said Christos, project evaluation, should be available for all members. Also it is not the same as a team has 12 players and another only 2. Who would win this match?
I totally agree that after two years, all our requests should be admitted. The final evaluation of the project is very important and will be reviewed by many people. We can not lose face to our agencies accusing each other.
For some partners was their first project, this movito should consider all requests from the other partners.
I'm not saying that things were getting better or worse, I can just give my opinion.
We should agree for proper evaluation.
From Leiva Formación, hope this is resolved in the best way possible. Remember that it is a multi-partner, and several countries. Everyone has the right to have access to everything related to our project. Including the good and bad reviews of it.
In our opinion, we should leave the evaluation in the hands of more experienced partners.
For us it was our first project, and I assume our mistakes, but also praised our achievements.
Thank you and I hope you understand and take into account our opinion.
We strongly disagree with such an assessment. They should evaluate the project itself. The work, no tours or cultural events. National agencies do not provide grants to go hiking.
It is intolerable that is not assessed under the same conditions.
As I said before, if a team plays with 20 players and another with 2, who will win the match?
I hope this is resolved soon. The final evaluation by Meryem not acceptable.
Dear Meryem,
I have a few remarks to make about the project evaluation which I did not really like. These are comments related to the way this evaluation was contacted and the ethics and transparency YOU used when putting this report together.
1. Regarding the results of the evaluation you circulated do not reflect a true evaluation of this project. If someone partner wanted to influence the results all he had to do was to register 20-30 evaluations. Seven participants from Nigde and ten from Training Cons 2005 distorted the results of this evaluation. How true an evaluation can be when 17 out of the 29 evaluators come from two organisations? You know about statistics, so tell me ! You should have asked an equal number from every organisation to participate.
2. The fact that you included comments from the evaluators without giving the evaluated organisations the chance to respond, leaves them exposed and does not reflect the truth at all ! Some remarks can be considered as personal attacks which is very unethical. Some accuse partners for stealing. I could have been very harsh with my remarks but i respected the individuals I worked with for two years. Would you have liked if someone described what had happened in Nigde during the kick off meeting? If this remains as it is then I want to add some remarks which I will demand to be included.
3. In my opinion, the members of one organisation should NOT be allowed to evaluate their organisation for obvious reasons.
4. To be transparent, all evaluations must be distributed to all partners. You put together this final report and you could selectively include the comments and results that suited you most. Who guarantees us that you did not leave out remarks that expose you and your organisation?
Please don’t take this remarks personally but it is obvious that the results of this evaluation do not reflect reality and they are definately one sided. Also, the ethical level of this report is very low since personal attacks are noted in a document which will be accessible by some many people.
I am due to submit 'E8. COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION' of the final report which should be in line with the evaluation report. I can not though base my comments on something so one sided !
I expect you to correct this because it is right to h
Best Regards,
Christos Nicolaides
DekaPlus Business Services Ltd
Managing Director
Tel. +357-25760055/99378673
Fax +357-25760090
Vida Drąsutė
On 2012.09.04 17:54, meryem nur wrote:
Dear Christos,
If you had told us your decision about the evaluation process 2 months ago, we would have disscussed them, we might have accepted it.But now, I may only write you about the reasons.Please read the red sentences at the below.Meryem
From: chri...@dekaplus.com
To: activelearni...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: final evaluation report
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:28:23 +0300
Dear Meryem,
I have a few remarks to make about the project evaluation which I did not really like. These are comments related to the way this evaluation was contacted and the ethics and transparency YOU used when putting this report together.
1. Regarding the results of the evaluation you circulated do not reflect a true evaluation of this project. If someone partner wanted to influence the results all he had to do was to register 20-30 evaluations. Seven participants from Nigde and ten from Training Cons 2005 distorted the results of this evaluation. How true an evaluation can be when 17 out of the 29 evaluators come from two organisations? You know about statistics, so tell me ! You should have asked an equal number from every organisation to participate. (I am agree with you, the number of the participants are very different from each Company. But, what can I do if they dont fill in the form. I waited so long before start to evaluate. and I called last day of the evaluation again and again. after this I really dont take any responsibility. I didnt limited any body to fill in.
2. The fact that you included comments from the evaluators without giving the evaluated organisations the chance to respond, leaves them exposed and does not reflect the truth at all ! Some remarks can be considered as personal attacks which is very unethical. Some accuse partners for stealing. I could have been very harsh with my remarks but i respected the individuals I worked with for two years. Would you have liked if someone described what had happened in Nigde during the kick off meeting? If this remains as it is then I want to add some remarks which I will demand to be included. (İf we give participants a change to respond, this wouldnt be an evaluation. This would be online disscussion. So this is not our purpose for the evaluation process.
Personal attack is one of risk of To impose this risk we used frequency. If somebody wanted to teel lies for someone this items rfrequency will be low.(Vida did this on her evaluations. Vida's evaluations doesnt have a scientific value for this reason)
3. In my opinion, the members of one organisation should NOT be allowed to evaluate their organisation for obvious reasons. (You should have told this opinion before the evaluation process. ıf you had told this before the evaluation , I would have accept. But now it is impossible.)
4. To be transparent, all evaluations must be distributed to all partners. You put together this final report and you could selectively include the comments and results that suited you most. Who guarantees us that you did not leave out remarks that expose you and your organisation?
Please read the description of the evaluation form. we cant share the evaluations results with any of the company. This is not ethic.
We may show our results only official representer.
Please don’t take this remarks personally but it is obvious that the results of this evaluation do not reflect reality and they are definately one sided. Also, the ethical level of this report is very low since personal attacks are noted in a document which will be accessible by some many people.
I am not agree with you. the report presents only your opinions. We cant tell true or wrong. True or wrong side of this report might be search only authories if you want.
The evaluation is deffinitelly based on only your opinions.
I am due to submit 'E8. COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION' of the final report which should be in line with the evaluation report. I can not though base my comments on something so one sided !
I expect you to correct this because it is right to h
Best Regards,
Christos Nicolaides
DekaPlus Business Services Ltd
Managing Director
Tel. +357-25760055/99378673
Fax +357-25760090
Vida Drąsutė
On 2012.09.04 18:19, meryem nur wrote:
Dear pedro,
As you told, the number of the participants are very different from each Company. But, what can I do if they didnt fill in the form. I waited so long before to start to evaluate. and I called last day of the evaluation again and again. after this I really dont take any responsibility. I didnt limited anybody to fill in.
You should have told this opinions before the evaluation process. ıf you had told this before the evaluation , we might have accept. But now it is impossible.
Meryem
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:23:12 +0200
Subject: Re: final evaluation report
From: ord...@gmail.com
To: activelearni...@googlegroups.com
Dear all. The first thing to consider is that our project is based on the joint work of all partners. As rightly said Christos, project evaluation, should be available for all members. Also it is not the same as a team has 12 players and another only 2. Who would win this match?
I totally agree that after two years, all our requests should be admitted. The final evaluation of the project is very important and will be reviewed by many people. We can not lose face to our agencies accusing each other.
For some partners was their first project, this movito should consider all requests from the other partners.
I'm not saying that things were getting better or worse, I can just give my opinion.
We should agree for proper evaluation.
From Leiva Formación, hope this is resolved in the best way possible. Remember that it is a multi-partner, and several countries. Everyone has the right to have access to everything related to our project. Including the good and bad reviews of it.
In our opinion, we should leave the evaluation in the hands of more experienced partners.
For us it was our first project, and I assume our mistakes, but also praised our achievements.
Thank you and I hope you understand and take into account our opinion.
We strongly disagree with such an assessment. They should evaluate the project itself. The work, no tours or cultural events. National agencies do not provide grants to go hiking.
It is intolerable that is not assessed under the same conditions.
As I said before, if a team plays with 20 players and another with 2, who will win the match?
I hope this is resolved soon. The final evaluation by Meryem not acceptable.
Dear Meryem,
I have a few remarks to make about the project evaluation which I did not really like. These are comments related to the way this evaluation was contacted and the ethics and transparency YOU used when putting this report together.
1. Regarding the results of the evaluation you circulated do not reflect a true evaluation of this project. If someone partner wanted to influence the results all he had to do was to register 20-30 evaluations. Seven participants from Nigde and ten from Training Cons 2005 distorted the results of this evaluation. How true an evaluation can be when 17 out of the 29 evaluators come from two organisations? You know about statistics, so tell me ! You should have asked an equal number from every organisation to participate.
2. The fact that you included comments from the evaluators without giving the evaluated organisations the chance to respond, leaves them exposed and does not reflect the truth at all ! Some remarks can be considered as personal attacks which is very unethical. Some accuse partners for stealing. I could have been very harsh with my remarks but i respected the individuals I worked with for two years. Would you have liked if someone described what had happened in Nigde during the kick off meeting? If this remains as it is then I want to add some remarks which I will demand to be included.
3. In my opinion, the members of one organisation should NOT be allowed to evaluate their organisation for obvious reasons.
4. To be transparent, all evaluations must be distributed to all partners. You put together this final report and you could selectively include the comments and results that suited you most. Who guarantees us that you did not leave out remarks that expose you and your organisation?
Please don’t take this remarks personally but it is obvious that the results of this evaluation do not reflect reality and they are definately one sided. Also, the ethical level of this report is very low since personal attacks are noted in a document which will be accessible by some many people.
I am due to submit 'E8. COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION' of the final report which should be in line with the evaluation report. I can not though base my comments on something so one sided !
I expect you to correct this because it is right to h
Best Regards,
Christos Nicolaides
DekaPlus Business Services Ltd
Managing Director
Tel. +357-25760055/99378673
Fax +357-25760090