SportBoard - Quality Assurance Plan and Checklist - Deliverable 1.5

Ref. Ares(2022)5498068 - 01/08/2022

Quality Assurance Plan and Checklist July 2022

Deliverable 1.5

Purpose The purpose of this Quality Assurance & Checklist is to assist partners and employees of the project in following the standard of quality during the development of the SportBoard project in all its phases. The partners and employees will achieve this by providing adequate time in the schedule for thorough reviews of the deliverables, using appropriately skilled personnel, and documenting review processes. This document will be used on all SportBoard events, actions, and deliverables to ensure project meet or exceed expectations of quality stated in the contract document.

Definitions Quality is the degree to which a product or service conforms to valid customer's requirements (including laws, rules, procedures, policies, and standards).

Quality Assurance (QA) is defined as planned and systematic activities of providing fact-based evidence that quality products and services are being delivered. Essentially, QA describes the process of enforcing quality control protocols.

Quality Control (QC) is defined as the activities of implementing, monitoring and continuously improving processes to ensure delivery of quality products, services, and information. QC includes such activities as providing clear decisions and directions, constant supervision by experienced individuals, immediate review of completed activities for accuracy and completeness,

and

recommendations.

accurate

documentation

of

all

decisions,

assumptions,

and

Table of contents: 1. Project Information __________________________________________________________ 5 2. Project Schedule ____________________________________________________________ 7 3. Project Deliverables _________________________________________________________ 7 4. Organisational Structure (Roles and responsibilities) _______________________________ 8 1.1

Steering committee _____________________________________________________ 8

1.2

Project Coordinator ____________________________________________________ 11

1.3

Project Implementation Team____________________________________________ 13

1.3.1

Project Team Coordinator____________________________________________ 13

1.3.2

Project Team Member ______________________________________________ 13

5. Quality Standards __________________________________________________________ 14 6. Project Indicators __________________________________________________________ 14 Annex 1. Deliverables assessment template document

Project Information This Quality Control Plan is written to meet the requirements for the granted project on the ERASMUS-SPORT-2021-SCP call: Building Good Governance in Sport through Monitoring and Management of Child and Young Athletes´ Ethics (hereinafter SportBoard).

Project Summary SportBoard is an intersectoral project initiative, aiming to improve good governance of grassroots sport organizations and governing bodies by proposing a holistic approach towards monitoring and managing ethics behaviour of child and young athletes.

The SportBoard project intends to develop and test a holistic approach towards good governance for grassroots sport organizations and governing bodies based on monitoring, evaluation, and management of athletes’ ethics behaviour. Good governance will be based on a systemic work of definition of ethics behaviour indicators, their registration, monitoring and management via Web App and online Observatory system. SportBoard behaviour indicators will be organised around at least the 6 following categories of behaviour: (1) harassment & bullying; (2) discrimination, whether it be based on origin, colour, gender, religion, disability or sexual 5

orientation; (3) doping; (4) abuse, including sexual abuse; and (5) violence, (6) match fixing. The holistic approach will be tested within the SportBoard Pilot Programme implementation in Spain and Italy and will involve 180 coaches, physical education teachers and 70 representatives of sport governing structures and bodies from Spain and Italy.

Promoting ethical behaviour in sport and providing good governance is even more important now than it used to be since “COVID-19 has and will further increase inequalities, discrimination and marginalization”.

Project objectives SportBoard project is a follow-up initiative of Ethics4Sport (E4S) Erasmus Plus Partnership aimed to improve good governance of grassroots sport organizations and governing bodies by proposing a holistic approach towards monitoring and managing ethics behaviour of child and young athletes. After the end of E4S’s implementation, Sant Cugat Creix and Anderlini Sport Club made several important observations leading to the elaboration of the SportBoard initiative. The first observation was that there is a lack of information on indicators of ethical (non-ethical) behaviour of athletes in the sport field. This creates difficulty for grassroots sports organizations and governing bodies to identify cases of non-ethical behaviour, properly analyse them and manage. In this regard the project partners came up with the following specific objectives: (SO1): to develop a set of indicators of ethical (non-ethical) behaviour of child and young athletes for its further monitoring and management.

(SO2): to develop an online digital platform for monitoring and managing ethics behaviour of child and young athletes.

(SO3) is to develop and test a model of cooperation between grassroots sports organizations and public authorities for providing efficient and coherent monitoring and management of ethics behaviour of child and young athletes.

6

2. Project Schedule

3. Project Deliverables

7

4. Organisational Structure The organisational structure of the project has been conceived to facilitate the establishment of quality control measures and to ensure a cost-efficiency approach to achieve the expected results.

This structure is mainly grounded on a sole Governance body: ➢ The Steering Committee (SC) ➢ Project Coordination and Support office facilitated by the Coordinator (SCC), and ➢ Project Implementation Teams appointed by all PPs.

1.1 Steering Committee The SC is composed by the project team coordinator (PTC) of each partner of the consortium.

Additionally, the SC will have administrative support from a specialised consulting company working on EU projects that was contracted by the SportBoard project.

SCC Project Implemention Team coordinator

URL Project Implemention Team coordinator Consulting company support Steering Committee

SC Project Implemention Team coordinator

Anderlini Project Implemention Team coordinator Modena Project Implemention Team coordinator

The role of the SC is to provide advice, ensure delivery of the project outputs and the achievement of project outcomes. Specifically, these are its responsibilities: 8

• • • • • •

Providing input to the development of the project, including the evaluation strategy.

Defining and helping to achieve the project outcomes.

Identifying the priorities in the project – where the most energy should be directed.

Identifying and monitoring potential risks and timelines.

Monitoring the quality of the project as it develops.

Providing advice (and sometimes making decisions) about changes to the project as it develops.

Functioning Rules of the Steering Committee

1. Project Steering Committee (PSC) The PSC is an ultimate decision-making body responsible for the determination of policies and decision making in relation to the overall running of the Project.

2. PSC’s role The PSC shall undertake, and decide on, the following matters: • • • • • •

Approving the governance structure, and the decision-making principles and responsibilities of all management bodies.

Dealing with major amendments to the Work Plan, changes in the composition of the Partnership, and major changes in the overall Project.

Ensuring follows up and monitoring the progress of the Project.

Reviewing and approving the Project deliverables.

Deciding upon the strategies and technical roadmaps.

Taking all necessary decisions regarding its responsibilities without undue delay.

3. PSC meetings The Project Steering Committee (PSC) typically meets twice a year via face-to-face meetings, indicatively every 6 months, on dates fixed by the PSC at previous meetings. In principle each PSC will be hosted in a different MPA-Engage country, on a rotation basis. They may also be held by teleconference, or any other telecommunication means if appropriate.

In order to ensure maximum efficiency, no more than 2 representatives of each Partner can be present at a PSC meeting. Participation in the PSC meetings is mandatory, and any absence needs to be duly justified in advance to the Lead Partner. Each Partner in the meeting organises and pays for his/her own travel and accommodation.

Extraordinary meetings may also be held at any time provided that written request has been received by the Lead Partner (including by electronic mail).

9

The first PSC meeting must be organised by the LP within two months after the official project start-up date. At this occasion, the PSC internal rules must be adopted (see the PSC internal rules document), and the validated minutes of the meeting sent to the Joint Secretariat (JS) within one month, confirming the start of activities.

TIPS & RECOMMENDATIONS 1. TEMPLATES – Useful templates for the PSC meetings are available in the One Drive, WP4 Communication: for PSC minutes, but also meeting agenda and PowerPoint presentations.

2. REPORTING – Once the meeting has happened, the organiser (here the LP) should as soon as possible upload all the following documentation on the Google Drive as they will be used for the reporting: agenda, presence sheet, minutes, PowerPoint presentations, photos.

3. PHOTOS – Do not forget to take photos of the meeting – they will serve as evidence as well.

4. Decision-making rules The PSC chairperson (LP representative) shall be responsible for the proper functioning of the PSC and shall perform his or her duties as follows: verifies the quorum, declares the opening and closing of each meeting, conducts the discussion, rules on points of order, accords the right to speak, announces the decisions and summarizes them at the end of the meeting, etc.

The co-chair will be a representative of the PSC member which hosts the meeting and oversees the logistics. When the LP hosts the meeting, it may appoint a co-chair.

5. Chair and co-chair As PSC chair, the Lead Partner of MPA-Engage carries out the following tasks, in accordance with the other PSC members: • •

• •

Chairs the PSC to ensure a good managing of the works and the respect of the Rules of procedures.

Proposes dates and the draft agenda of the PSC’s meetings at least 3 weeks before the scheduled meeting. Requests for additional items to the agenda can be proposed and submitted in writing to the chair at the latest one week before the date of the meeting. If any urgent issues arise to be treated, the PSC may be convened by the Lead Partner even with a shorter notice.

Organises the agenda of the meetings and events in collaboration with the co-chair.

Organises and prepares the working documents for PSC’s meetings.

The PSC chairperson (LP representative) shall be responsible for the proper functioning of the PSC and shall perform his or her duties as follows: verifies the quorum, declares the opening and 10

closing of each meeting, conducts the discussion, rules on points of order, accords the right to speak, announces the decisions and summarizes them at the end of the meeting, etc.

The co-chair will be a representative of the PSC member which hosts the meeting and oversees the logistics. When the LP hosts the meeting, it may appoint a co-chair. PSC meeting’s minutes.

6. PSC meeting’s minutes The co-chair (hosting partner) in collaboration with the chair (Lead Partner) writes the draft minutes of the meetings, which reflects the key outcomes and decisions taken, within two weeks after the meeting. If no written objections are raised from PSC members within one week after the minutes are received, they are approved. In the case of objections by one or more members within one week after receiving the minutes, the chair shall revise the minutes, accordingly, consolidates a final version and send the final minutes to the PSC members. In this case, the final version is approved by written procedure.

All final versions of meetings’ minutes shall be uploaded on the Project’s Drive.

7. PSC members’ obligations Furthermore, PSC members are bound to respect the following rules of conduct: • •

• •

Participate in the meetings.

Inform the LP at least two weeks before the scheduled PSC meeting, of the impossibility to participate in it and identify officially, if possible, an alternate. The alternate representative shall enjoy the same rights for that meeting as the partner she/he replaces.

Act in the interest of an efficient implementation of the cooperation project, in accordance with the scope and objectives of the project.

Take decisions in the public interest and not to act in the purpose of obtaining financial advantages or other benefits for themselves or for others.

8. Original composition The PSC’s original composition is as follows: ORGANISATION NAME ASSOCIACIO SanCugatCreix UNIVERSITAT RAMON LULL FUNDACIO SPORT ET CITOYENNETE 3S SCUOLA DI PALLAVOLO ANDERLINI SOCIETA COOPERATIVA SOCIALE SPORTIVA DILETTANTISTICA COMUNE DI MODENA

COUNTRY ES ES FR IT IT

11

1.2 Project Coordination and Support Office In this regard, the Project Coordinator (hereinafter COO) will ensure project completion as described in the Grant Agreement and will perform management at operational level following the Project Handbook (D1.2) based on EACEA / Erasmus+ procedures. A dedicated training session on project management and Erasmus+ procedures is foreseen in the kick-off meeting, delivered to all partners by UVic-UCC Office European Projects.

The project Coordinator will set up a Project Coordination and Support Office which will be led by the Project Implementation Manager and assisted by a team of a Financial Manager and an Administrative Assistant. The office will: coordinate reporting, control financial and technical progress and ensure action is taken to anticipate and avoid or detect and resolve problems as appropriate; maintain the project documentation archive; and coordinate actions such as external audits (if any), SC and project technical meetings; communication; and track, monitor and evaluate project activity implementation. Finally, the office acts as intermediary between the project partners and the EACEA Project Officer. The Coordinator will facilitate the necessary digital infrastructure to ensure a smooth internal communication within the partnership, using platforms like TEAMS to organize video-calls and provide shared project folders via One Drive.

The COO will oversee managing the EU grant and distribute the funds to the rest of partners according to their budget allocation, the approval of deliverables by EACEA and subject to the eligibility of the costs incurred by PPs.

12

1.3 Project Implementation Team The PIT is the group of individuals that compose each PP working team. Two main roles are defined in each PIT: the project implementation team member (PITM) and the project implementation team coordinator (PITC).

Project Implemention Team member 1

Project Implemention Team member 2

Project Implementation Team Coordinator PITC

Project Implemention Team member 3

Project Implemention Team member ...

1.3.1 Project implementation team coordinator The PTC is the individual who is responsible for the coordination of a PP team. He/she handles administrative tasks for the PP and team members to keep the project running according to plan.

Project team coordinator responsibilities are: • • • • •

Coordinating the PIT. Ensuring the quality of the deliverables which the PIT is in charge for.

Executing PIT management administrative tasks.

Supporting team members to help the complete project tasks and deliverables.

Fostering PTM collaboration and coordination

1.3.2 Project implementation Team Member Project team members are the individuals who actively work on one or more phases of the WPs. Project team member responsibilities are: • • • •

Contributing to overall project objectives Completing individual deliverables Providing expertise Documenting the process

13

5. QUALITY STANDARDS Here we focus on the general methods implemented to ensure quality of written materials delivered to the EC and other Participants external to the Consortium. A document produced in a project generally aims to provide information concerning the work, its progress, or the derived results. Each, and every document should thus be carefully drafted with rich content, a clear structure, and a professional presentation. The overall quality control of the project results includes the coordination of quality review for every step of the implementation of the project including processes for deliverables, prior to their submission to the EC. In SportBoard, the three aspects for building quality into project documents are content, appearance and timing. It is however generally accepted that the relative importance of each document varies and therefore timing may be compromised if rigorous quality criteria and associated procedures are applied to every single project document.

Aspects

Metric or Specification Completeness

Measure Information must address all aspects related to the purpose for which the deliverable is produced Information provided in the deliverable must be evidence-based.

Accuracy

This means that all information used in the deliverables should be

Content

supported by relevant and up-to-date references.

Information used in the deliverable should be focused on the key Relevance

issues and be written in a way that takes into consideration its target audience

Depth

Adherence to uniform Appearance

appearance and structure

Visibility of EU funding

Timing

Punctuality

All information used should be provided to the depth needed for the purpose of the deliverable.

Even if deliverables will be authored by different partners within the framework of SportBoard, it is important that deliverables are prepared with uniform appearance and structure The Erasmus+ visibility guidelines has been respected (i.e., reference to the origin of the funds, visibility of the EU flag, etc.)

The information must be provided in relation to the phase of the project’s development and according to the Work plan

The assessment process of the deliverables is willing to help PIT to deliver outcomes that meet the criteria. In order to promote this will, the quality standards of each deliver will be assessed by an assessment rubric. Rubrics help PTC clarify and identify the expected quality of the work prior to working on it. It also helps the team to judge their own work and accept more 14

responsibility of the final product. A rubric is also a mean to understand the direction which an outcome should take. Rubrics also provide a possible up-to-date assessment of a certain deliver that each PIT can do before the deliver.

Each deliverable will be assessed by this rubric: Insufficient

Weak

Positive

Excellent

Content is missing and redundant

There is a weak information fully address all aspects

Information addresses the aspects of the deliverable

Information fully addresses all aspects

There are errors, ambiguity, and insufficient supporting data

There are errors, or ambiguity or not supported information

The information is supported by relevant and up-todate references

All information is supported by relevant and up-todate references

Relevance

Information is not relevant nor is not well written

Information can focus better on the key issues and can be written in a better way

Information can focus better on the key issues or can be written in a better way

Depth

The deliverable has not enough information to be delivered

There is a lack of details when detailing the information

There is a good amount of information

Information is focused on the key issues and written in an appropriate manner There is in-depth amount of information.

Relevant details are provided

Adherence to appearance and structure

The deliverable has an inconsistent appearance and structure

Lack of uniform appearance and structure

The deliverable has few uniform appearance and structure inconsistencies

The deliverable has a uniform appearance and structure

Visibility of EU funding

The Erasmus+ visibility guidelines are not followed

Inconsistent and inadequate use of the visibility tools

The Erasmus+ visibility guidelines are partially respected

The Erasmus+ visibility guidelines are respected

Punctuality

There is a significantly delay

There is a manageable delay of the deliver

The deliver is done right on time

The deliver is donce before the deadline

Completeness

Accuracy

As a general standard, only when an outcome meets all content criteria in a positive assessment and appearance aspects in excellent assessment, it will be accepted to be delivered to EC. Timing criteria will only be used as an information to evaluate the results of the project. As a general standard, only when an outcome meets all content criteria in a positive assessment and appearance aspects in excellent assessment, it will be accepted to be delivered to EACEA / Erasmus+. Timing criteria will only be used as an information to evaluate the results of the project.

15

The process for controlling the quality standards of a deliverable, will be as follows. First, the WP leader will send the deliverable to the PST individuals. The individuals representing the PSC will assess the deliverable through the assessment rubric. It is important, in this case, to promote a will of feed forward assessment to the PSC. That is why, apart from the assessment of the different quality metrics, the assessment document has a subsection of comments and another one for suggesting ways to improve the document, if necessary. As a result of this action, some situations can appear: • • •

YES. If the deliverable is endorsed positively by all PSC members, the deliverable will be loaded to the EACEA / Erasmus+ platform.

PENDING. If one of the PSC members do not approve the document, the acceptation or not of the deliverable, will be discussed in the following PSC meeting.

NO. If two or more PSC members do not approve the document, it will be returned to the WP leader. In this case, the deliverable will be a discussion point of the following PSC meeting and the WP leaders will provide insights and help to the deliverable responsible in order to improve the document.

The following flow chart describes this process:

Figure 1. Deliverables decision flow chart

16

6. Project Indicators Monitoring & Evaluation Strategy Strong monitoring and evaluation measures will be set up from the beginning of the project in order to be able to provide solid base for recommendations and findings to be presented to the local, regional and national structures, as well as other entities, working in the field of sports and inclusion at EU level. While partners will ensure project monitoring in their target areas, SCC will monitor overall implementation progress through standardised communication with all PPs. The following procedures and tools will be used to ensure that the project is implemented on time, in required quality and reaches the expected objectives and outcomes.

1. Project performance evaluation

➢

➢

➢

Project Steering Committee (SC) will be established and regularly meets serving as a platform for progress monitoring, discussing possibilities for improvements and planning forthcoming activities: E1.1-E1.3. During SC meetings, progress monitoring, control and planning will be critical aspects for discussion among PPs Project performance monitoring consisting of regular bi-monthly monitoring of project performance in terms of i) activities within the scheduled calendar and planned budget; ii) deliverables (including its quality control); iii) expected results and indicators Narrative reporting, required by EACEA, the monitoring and evaluation of project progress will then be a fundamental part of the narrative reporting, required by EACEA, describing the progress, achievements. A final project-end report will be delivered.

Performance Indicators TYPE

Output indicator

PARTNER

DESCRIPTION

REACHED

TARGET M30

ALL

Number of scientific publications on ethical behaviour indicators in the field of sport reviewed for the development of SportBoard indicators.

0

50

0

7

0

60

0

150

0

1

Output indicator

ALL

Output indicator

ALL

Output indicator

ALL

Output indicator

ALL

Number of ethical (non-ethical) behaviour indicators for each of the 6 categories of athletes´ behaviour to be proposed and described.

Number of coaches, PE teachers, administrative staff, parents attending the focus groups (needs assessment).

Number of representatives of sport governing bodies (public authorities, federations) answered on the NEEDs assessment questionnaire.

Number of online educational course(s) for sport coaches, physical education teachers and representatives of sport governing structures and bodies (sport clubs' administrative staff, representatives of public authorities, sport federations and associations) on monitoring and managing ethical behaviour of child and young athletes are developed and available in three languages EN, ES, IT.

17

Output indicator

ALL

Output indicator

ALL

Output indicator

ALL

Output indicator

ALL

Output indicator Output indicator Output indicator Output indicator

0

180

0

150

0

70

0

50

0

800

0

10

0

50

0

160

0

30

0

15

0

800

ALL

The model of cooperation between grassroots sports organizations and public authorities is tested within two territories: Sant Cugat Creix and City of Modena.

0

2

ALL

At least 15 sport’s governing bodies from 5 EU countries expressed their interest to apply the SportBoard holistic approach towards monitoring and managing ethics behaviour of child and young athletes.

0

15

ALL ALL ALL ALL

Output indicator

ALL

Output indicator

ALL

Output indicator

ALL

Output indicator Output indicator

Number of coaches and PE teachers, attended the SportBoard online educational course.

Number of coaches and physical education teachers used SportBoard Mobile App for monitoring and managing ethical behaviour of child and young athletes.

Number of representatives of sport governing bodies from Spain and Italy attended the SportBoard online educational course.

Number of representatives of sport governing structures and bodies from Spain and Italy used SportBoard digital platform for improving good governance in sport by monitoring and managing ethical behaviour of child and young athletes.

Number of registers of ethical sport behaviour with the online observatory tool.

Number of different sport types for the pilot program to be tested upon.

Number of child and young athletes’ parents used the SportBoard App. Number of stakeholders attending the project awareness raising activities (webinars and conferences).

Number of practical recommendations on application of the model of cooperation between grassroot sport organisations and public authorities.

Number of sports governing bodies from 5 EU countries that expressed their interest to apply the SportBoard holistic approach.

Online observatory tool will receive at least 800 registers of ethical (non-ethical) sport behaviour (300 for the first round of the Pilot implementation and 500 for the second round).

18

Annex 1. Deliverables assessment template document ID Deliverable: Receiving date: Assessor: Metric Completeness Accuracy Relevance Depth Adherence Funding visibility Punctuality

Insufficient

Weak

Positive

Excellent

Comments:

If necessary, improvement proposals:

Assessment date: Signature:

19