5 project prioritization

Verkefnastjóri um Heklan - Atvinnuþróunarfélag Suðurnesja
29. Nov 2011

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a 5 project prioritization(20)


5 project prioritization

  1. Sustainable Economic Development of the Sudurnes region, Iceland : Project Prioritisation JOSE MATEOS MORENO Ásbrú, 25 November 2011
  2. AN INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT PRIORITISATION CRITERIA AND TECHNIQUES • The Need for Prioritisation • Approach to Prioritisation • Outline Selection Procedures 2
  3. PRIORITISATION CRITERIA • Accession Criteria • Competitiveness Criteria (e.g.. Relation with priority, effectiveness) • Financial & Economic Criteria (efficiency, financial sustainability) • Technical Criteria (e.g. maturity of proposals) • Social & Political Criteria (e.g. commitment) • Commercial & Institutional Criteria (e.g. quality of implementing institution) Focus on a Limited Number of Key Criteria 3
  4. APPROACH TO PRIORITISATION • Select the prioritisation team • Identify criteria that could be used for homogeneous projects. • Select & Weight the most relevant criteria • Agree how each selected criterion will be applied • Obtain project data that will allow this to be done • Apply the criteria to each project • Calculate scores and apply weightings Make Sure the Approach is Consistent 4
  5. Example Prioritisation Criteria – OP COMP Priority Axis: Strenghtening Cooperation for R&D • Durability of project effects: The result of project implementation will contribute to resolution of definite problems (e.g., technological ones)? • Experience: Beneficiary’s experience in implementation of research projects • Project’s innovative nature:The project relates to the problem not resolved? • Project’s impact on increasing enterprises’ competitiv.: The future new product will enable the enterprise an effective competition in the market? • Market demand for a given product: local, national, international? • Number of new jobs: Project implementation will contribute to emergence of new jobs? • EU horizontal policies implementation: environmental protection, IS, etc. 5
  6. Project Selection Procedures (1) • Project selection procedures shall be outlined during OP preparation – Responsible bodies (intermediate) – Decision making process – Potential final beneficiaries – Main priorities and selection criteria – Documentation – Publicity 6
  7. Project Selection Procedures (2) • Intermediate bodies responsible for selection of projects for assistance within individual OP measures • OP objectives and targets should be translated into project selection criteria. In the case of EU cofinanced projects, the objectives of IPA Fund should also be translated into selection criteria. 7
  8. Selection of Project Proposals Through Application Procedure • Call for proposals – public or restricted • A) Queue-based approval systems • B) Competitive: – Regular intake of proposals (2-4 times per year) – One application round 8
  9. EVALUATION PROCEDURE (2) Consists of two elements: • a) formal evaluation (is the application complete?) • b) technical and economical Appraisal: – Compatibility with the objective of the Priority Axis – Economic analysis of feasibility – financial evaluation – analysis of the business plan (cost-effectiveness) 9
  10. Project Selection – Transparency Issues • Public promotion • Eligibility criteria published • Criteria for selection available • Weightings for criteria available • Decisions made by Committee • Information given to unsuccessful applicants • Competitive or queuing basis • Appeals system in place 10
  11. Principal Appraisal Techniques • Financial Analysis • Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) • Cost Effectiveness • Scoring, Weighting, Ranking (SWR) • Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) Cost Benefit Analysis • Mandatory for projects €50m+ • Recommended for other large infrastructural projects 11 (
  12. Project Appraisal – Scoring, Weighting, Ranking (SWR) • Identification of project appraisal criteria • Weighting is assigned to each criteria based on importance (no weighting = equal value) • Each project receives numerical score against different criteria • Different project applications ranked against each other 12
  13. Evaluation Grid (see example) Scoring Sheet 1 Very Poor 2 Poor 3 Adequate 4 Good 5 Very Good 13
  14. Eligibility in EU Funds • Constraints at National Level: – Urban Planning – Environmental Legislation – Regional Development Plans /Strategies, etc. – Operational Programmes – Call for Proposal • Constraints at EU Level: – Specific regulations of the Funds – Eligibility Rules for type of expenditure: VAT, Land acquisition, etc. – Size of the Project: Major Projects. – Distortion of the Internal Market: State aid regulations – Public procurement – Environmental Constraints: NATURA 2000
  15. Checklist for Quality Appraisal of project proposals (1) QUALITY ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS 1. Relevance – Are the beneficiaries clearly identified? – Are the problems of the beneficiaries described sufficiently? 1.3 Is the problem analysis sufficiently comprehensive? 1.4 Do the Overall Objectives explain why the project is important for society? 1.5 Is the Project Purpose defined in terms of benefits to the beneficiaries? 1.6 Has the need for the results been demonstrated? 15
  16. Checklist for Quality Appraisal of project proposals (2) 2. Feasibility 2.1 Will the Project Purpose contribute to the Overall Objectives (if the assumptions hold)? 2.2 Are the Results described as services to be delivered to the target group? 2.3 Will the Project Purpose be achieved if the Results were delivered? 2.4 Are the means sufficiently justified by quantified objectives 2.5 Have important external conditions been identified? 2.6 Is the probability of realisation of the assumptions acceptable? 2.7 Will implementing agencies be able to implement the project? 16
  17. Checklist for Quality Appraisal of project proposals (3) 3. Sustainability 3.1 Will the relevant authorities have a supportive policy after the project has ended? 3.2 Is the technology appropriate for the local conditions? 3.3 Will the ecological environment be preserved during and after the project? 3.4 Will there be adequate ownership of the project by the beneficiaries? 3.5 Will women (and other groups) have adequate access to benefits and production factors during and after the project? 3.6 Will the implementing agencies be able to provide follow-up after the project? 3.7 Does the financial and economic analysis confirm that the ‘incremental project’ is efficient, effective, viable and relevant? 17