WP3 Quality Management Plan

1 WP 3: Quality | ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014
ERASMUS Lifelong Learning Program
Health & Well-being in Tourism Destination
2012 - 2014
Work Package 3:
Quality Management
Date: 2013-02-01
Author: Donna Dvorak (IHM)
Distribution: WelDest project team internal use
File name 2012.2.1.QualityPlan.v05.IHM
Version: 5.0
Description: Report presenting the quality
management plan for project WelDest
Version Date Status Author Changes
1 2012-10-01 Draft Dvorak - IHM
2 2012-11-03 Draft Dvorak – IHM Updates to tables, Format
3 2012-12-12 Draft Dvorak – IHM Updates to tables, clarification of
terms, modifications in response to
peer comments
4 2013-01-16 Draft Dvorak-IHM Updates to tables, clarification of
status reports and risk assessment
matrix
5 2013-02-01 FINAL Dvorak-IHM
6 2013-08-20 FINAL Dvorak-IHM Revised after removal of UOP team

2 WP 3: Quality| ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Background......................................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Aim and Scope of the Quality Management Plan .............................................................................................................. 5
2 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES....................................................................... 6
2.1 Organization structure - roles ............................................................................................................................................ 6
2.2 Division of Work................................................................................................................................................................. 6
3 PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Quality Requirements......................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Plans.................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Performance Quality .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.3.1 Preventative Activities – Risk Management....................................................................................................................... 9
3.3.2 Evaluation of Project Deliverables - Outputs ................................................................................................................... 10
3.4 Process Quality ................................................................................................................................................................. 13
4 COMMUNICATION .........................................................................................................................................14
4.1 Meetings............................................................................................................................................................................ 14
4.2 Exchange of Documents, Correspondence ....................................................................................................................... 14
5 DOCUMENTS .....................................................................................................................................................15
5.1 Document Storage and Accessiblity ................................................................................................................................. 15
5.2 Outputs ............................................................................................................................................................................. 15
5.3 Document Format............................................................................................................................................................. 15

5.4 Nomenclature of Documents: ........................................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix 1 – Work packages and Subtasks ................................................................................................................................... 17
Appendix 2 – Risk Assessment Matrix........................................................................................................................................... 18
1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to give a brief description of the WelDest project, including the rationale, objectives and
expectations.
1.1 Background
The Wellness trend is a growing demand factor for tourism and leisure activities globally. However, there are specific
needs and challenges regarding this trend that should be met. For both the customer and the industry, there is some
confusion about correct terminology, as well as what constitutes appropriate services and products for varying needs.
This also extends to a lack of proper educational material and course design at the tertiary and adult-learner level on
Health & Well-being destination development. Wellness is less seasonal and more labor-intensive, and there is a need for
this in many European countries where tourism can act as an economic booster.
The WelDest project aims to address the needs that have been identified above by creating a development framework to
be used by public bodies, destination management organizations (DMOs) and private companies at tourism destinations
willing to strengthen the elements influencing the well-being level of tourists and locals alike. The framework, supported
by educational material, enables development of the tourism destination towards a more holistic and sustainable H&WB
destination.
The objectives of the project are:
1 To outline, via research, the key service supply, resources, staff competencies and elementsof H&WB at tourist
destinations appreciated by both tourists and locals.
2 To identify or strengthen the potential for business opportunities in tourism and leisure and to foster innovation
around H&WB based services and destination development
3 To contribute to lifelong learning at various educational levels, between disciplines and related industries. The
learning process is supported by the following outputs:
a An electronic handbook “Keys to developing a holistic health & well-being tourism destination” (working title),
including a self-assessment and development tool, to be used by public and private bodies developing their
businesses and destinations. For use in tertiary educational institutions with various types/levels of study, the
handbook will be accompanied by course design, including educator instructions.
b A blog providing industry, academia and citizens with new opportunities to improve and share their
knowledge on H&WB and tourism related issues.

The WelDest project combines the knowledge, experience and expertise of academic and industry partners from five
countries (Finland, Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic and the UK). The main project language is English, though
partners’ languages will also be used in various stages of the project.

The duration of the project is 24 months (October 1, 2012 – September 30, 2014) and is comprised of six work packages:
1 Project management and leadership
1 Dissemination
2 Quality management of the project
3 Research
4 Creation of educational materials
5 Exploitation
1.2 Aim and Scope of the Quality Management Plan
This document, for internal use by the WelDest project team, will act as a guide for the internal quality management of the
WelDest Project and contains the general rules agreed upon in order to ensure its success. The plan shows how the
project will be carried out, measured, and monitored.
This quality plan defines the organization structure and the relationships between the partners so that there is a clear
distinction of roles for all participants, and a clear procedure for how the project will be managed and followed up. It also
contains the project time plan, including a timeframe for milestones and major deliverables.
Quality standards, including criteria and indicators are defined, and an evaluation framework, involving both formative and
summative evaluation, is used to ensure quality and continuous improvement. An important aspect of the quality plan is
the capacity for flexibility, allowing for modification or re-aligning of the project processes and objectives based on
feedback and evaluation findings. All partners will be involved as part of the assessment process while delivering this
project.
QP developed and approved at beginning of project to confirm major deliverables/milestone acceptance criteria and
manage approved project processes.

2 Project Organization and Responsibilities
2.1 Organization structure - roles
Management team - The project is led by a management team made up of one representative from each of the partner
countries. Members of this team participate in all partner meetings as well as monthly Skype meetings. They are also
responsible for coordinating communication with their industry and associate partners as well as their other team
members. The Project Manager, responsible for overall project management, leads this team. Team members are:
Susanna Saari (TUAS), Daniel Binder (FH Joanneum), Harprit Thacker (UCB), Donna Dvorak (IHM), Christian Husak
(CHC), Steffen Lange (HNEE)
HEI (Higher Education Institutes) Coordinators – Members of the management team also act as coordinators in their
respective countriesand are responsible for managing the completion of the tasks and subtasks outlined in their work
packages as well as reporting to the Project Manager.
HEI Team members – Responsible for completing the tasks and subtasks of the WPs assigned to their team. In addition,
one member of each team attends the partner meetings along with the coordinator from their team.
Industry partners – Each country in the project is represented by two industry partners. Industry partners provide
research data in the form of interviews and surveys as well as case study material for development of the handbook,
participating also in focus groups as part of the research work package. An industry partner representative also attends
the national-level WelDest camp workshop to be held in pilot destinations, participates in national meetings to discuss and
advise on content issues, and takes part in the international networking and benchmarking event and seminar in Berlin.
Associate partners –Each country in the project is represented by 1-2 associate partners who may provide research
data and material, but whose main role is in disseminating and sustaining the outcomes of WelDest. Associate partners
also participate in local meetings to discuss and advise on content issues.
External auditors – Responsible for assessing the content and usability of the e-handbookand course design.
2.2 Division of Work
To achieve the objectives of WelDest, work is divided into 6 work packages, each with specific subtasks. The list of WPs
and subtasks can be seen, along with the project time plan and duration of each WP and specific subtask in chart 1 in the
appendix.
Lead of WP 1: TUAS, Finland, Susanna Saari.
WP 1 covers the following activities & methods in the listed subtasks:
(ST= Subtask, name of the leader in brackets)

ST 1 Project implementation plan (TUAS)
ST2 Financial management (paid to partners in 30%, 30%,40% parts), (TUAS)
ST3 Contract process , (TUAS)
ST4 Reports for TUAS (Financial and Functional from partners), (TUAS)
ST5 Reports for EU (progress report & Final report), (TUAS)
ST6 Tenders when needed, (TUAS)
ST7 Partner meetings, agendas, (TUAS)
ST8 Partner meetings, minutes and action points lists (UCB)
Lead of WP 2: TUAS, Finland, Susanna Saari (work redistributed after removal of UOP team)
ST 1 Dissemination plan (TUAS)
ST 2 Dissemination follow up templates (UCB)
ST 3 Blog (on-going), (FH JOANNEUM)
ST 4 Logo (FH JOANNEUM)
ST 5 Power point presentations (about WelDest project & blank template) (FH JOANNEUM)
ST 6 Project Newsletters & mailing lists (UCB)
ST 7 Leaflet (language versions (EN/EN, EN/FI, EN/GE, EN/HU, EN/CZ) (FH JOANNEUM, all responsible for
their own language versions)
ST 8 International networking & benchmarking event with seminar (HNEE)
ST 9 WelDest Camp workshop on destination development (IHM, all responsible for the national set-up)
ST 10 Media contacts (press releases, interviews etc.) (IHM)
Lead of WP 3: Donna Dvorak, The Institute of Hospitality Management in Prague (IHM), Czech Republic
ST 1 Quality plan (for internal & external project quality) (IHM)
ST 2 WelDest meeting/workshop quality questionnaire & summary, (IHM)
ST 3 WelDest process quality follow up with mid & end project reports, (IHM)
ST 4 Quality assessment of educational materials (eHandbook), (UCB)
[WP 1, TUAS takes care of all tenders if needed for subcontracting quality experts]
Lead of WP 4: FH JOANNEUM, Austria, Prof. Kai Illing
ST1 Research methodology plan (FH JOANNEUM)
ST 2 Destination and consumer needs analyses, primary research (FH JOANNEUM)
ST 3 Current status of health and well-being destinations, secondary research (HNEE)
ST 4 Stakeholder research OST (CHC)
ST 5 Summary and framework for health & well-being destination elements (TUAS)
Lead of WP 5: Christian Husak Consultancy (CHC), Austria

ST 1 Development plan for educational material (CHC)
ST 2 Creation of eHandbook (FH JOANNEUM)
ST 3 Course design development including educator material (TUAS)
ST 4 Piloting of the educational material and the course design (CHC)
ST 5 Improvements and amendments of the educational material (CHC)
Lead of WP 6: UCB, England, Harprit Thacker
ST 1 Exploitation plan (UCB)
ST 2 Exploitation follow up templates (UCB)
ST 3 Articles in national, professional magazines (ALL PARTNERS)
ST 4 Conference / seminar participation with a paper and scientific article (TUAS)
ST 5 End project seminar & webinar (TUAS)
ST 6 Exploitation of the educational material and other outcomes (UCB)
3 Project Quality Control
3.1 Quality Requirements
This section includes a list of the methods that will be used to ensure the required level of quality. Quality management is
divided into three categories:
Plans
Performance quality - preventative activities, evaluation of project deliverables)
Process quality
Evaluation instruments and mechanisms used:
Risk assessment analysis
Quality/satisfaction questionnaires for partner meetings
Quality/satisfaction questionnaires for events (workshops, WelDest camp)
Peer review of deliverables
Expert review of deliverables (external audits)
WP status reports (three times per year)
Focus sessions during partner (and Skype) meetings
Interim and end project progress reports

Cost report analysis
3.2 Plans
Draft versions of the implementation plans for each WP are presented at the first partner meeting. The drafts are
discussed and approved at the meeting by general consensus after feedback and alterations. The plans are then updated
by the WP leaders and reviewed by the partners until final acceptance. There will be a minimum of two rounds of
feedback and alterations for each plan. Updates to the plans should be included in WP status reports.
The WP implementation plans will include qualitative and quantitative indicators for project progress which will be followed
and reported on a regular basis as part of internal project reporting. Plans also include target dates for submission of
deliverables.Plans are stored in the Optima workspace.
Target dates for final versions
Plan Target Date
Project implementation plan December 2012
Dissemination plan December 2012
Quality plan December 2012
Research methodology plan December 2012
Research methodology plan 2 – original plan to be revised after completion of the needs analysis March 2013
Development plan for educational material January 2014
Exploitation plan December 2012
3.3 Performance Quality
3.3.1 Preventative Activities – Risk Management
These are techniques to be used early in life-cycle of the project to minimize risks.
A risk assessment matrix (see appendix 2 for original version) has been developed for the various project activities
related to work involved in the project WPs. For each of the activities, the following are identified:
● Risks
● Their potential impact on the project
● Effect (level of impact)
● Probability of occurrence
The level of impact is assessed with a value of “negligible, marginal, critical or uncontrollable.” Probability is assessed
with a value of „low, medium, or high risk.” Following the calculation of risk exposure, the proposed solution or mitigation
strategies are presented.
Work package leaders are responsible for constantly monitoring and assessing risks related to their respective work
packages, paying special attention to the higher level risks. An interactive version of the matrix is posted separately on
Optima and is accessible to all the project team members to allow for tracking of status and monitoring of the evolution of

the mitigation strategies. Evaluation of the risks as well as strategies and updates will be included as part of the WP
status reports and will be discussed with each team separately at partner meetings.
3.3.2 Evaluation of Project Deliverables - Outputs
Table 1 contains the key project deliverables to be measured for satisfactory quality level.
Deliverables are measured and approved using instruments that include meeting evaluation forms, event evaluation
forms, a peer review process, and expert review process - external audits.
Meeting and event evaluations – to be done by all participants. Quantitative and qualitative data collected through
questionnaires using a digital survey tool that allows respondents to remain anonymous. A 5-point Likert scale is used
wherever possible. A summary of the data collected, including suggestions for changes and improvements will be
compiled after each meeting or event. A standard questionnaire form is used for partner meetings, and specific
questionnaires are developed for each event.
Peer review of deliverables – For deliverables to be evaluated using this instrument, each is reviewed by a partner, who
is nominated by the WP leader and not involved in the production of the deliverable. The deliverable is sent to the WP
leader at least 15 days before the expected delivery date. The WP leader immediately forwards it to the reviewer for
evaluation. The reviewer verifies whether the deliverable satisfies the requirements, description, or objective; identifies
deviations from requirements or problems; and suggests improvements to author. The reviewer returns the evaluation to
the author, whose responsibility it is to either accept or reject the suggestions and decide what actions are to be
undertaken. The deliverable is then submitted to the WP leader along with the reviewer’s evaluation for final approval or
approval contingent on further modification. For certain deliverables the peer review process may be carried out by
multiple reviewers to ensure quality.
Peer review evaluations should include the following information:
General comments:
 Thoroughness of contents
 Correspondence to project objectives
Specific comments:
 Relevance
 Format(layout, spelling, etc.)
Author submits
deliverable to WP leader
(or directly to reviewer)
WP leader forwards
deliverable to nominated
reviewer
Reviewer evaluates
deliverable and sends
evaluation to author
Author accepts/rejects
suggestions, makes
changes, returns
deliverable and eval. to
WP leader
WP leader gives final or
contingent approval

Suggested actions:
 The following changes should be implemented
 Missing information
 Further improvements
A template to be used by reviewers for writing peer review evaluations can be found in the WP 3 folder in Optima.
Expert review of deliverables - external audits - 3 to 5 external specialists will be subcontracted to quality audit the
outcomes of WP 5. The specialists will be representing different area of knowledge (e.g. eLearning, destination/regional
development, tourism development, health and well-being) and will check on the content and usability of the e-
Handbook& course design and the Self-assessment & development tool. They will be named later as this is a procedure
that involves tenders. The instructions and auditing documents will be created by the lead of WP 5as part of WelDest. The
feedback from the audit will be used to improve the final e-Handbook and its attachments.

Table 1: Evaluation Methods for Specific Deliverables
Work Package Deliverable Method of Evaluation
1 -Project
Management
Lead : TUAS,
Finland, Susanna
Saari
WelDest Meetings (partner meetings only) Partner meeting evaluation forms, focus sessions
Project meeting agendas To be assessed as part of partner meeting evaluation form
Interim and final EACEA reports Peer review of deliverable
2 – Dissemination
Lead: TUAS,
Finland, Susanna
Saari
Dissemination plan
Draft discussed and approved by general consensusat
kickoff meeting, at least 2 rounds of feedback and alterations
before approval of final version
WelDest newsletters Peer review of deliverable
WelDest leaflet Peer review of deliverable
International networking and benchmarking event and
seminar
Plan for the event to be drafted and peer-reviewed
Satisfaction evaluation form for events - specific form for the
event
WelDest Camp workshops for destination development
Plan for the event to be drafted and peer-reviewed
Satisfaction evaluation form for events
3 – Quality
Lead: IHM, Czech
Republic, Donna
Dvorak
Quality plan Draft discussed and approved by general consensusat
before approval of final version
Quality assessment of educational materials Peer review of deliverable
3 to 5 external specialists subcontracted to quality audit the
outcomes of WP 5.
4 - Research
Lead: FH Joanneaum,
Austria, Prof. Kai Illing
Research methodology plan Draft discussed and approved by general consensusat
before approval of final version.
Plan to be revised again with 2 rounds of feedback and
alternations after completion of needs analysis
Summary report on destination and consumer needs
analyses, primary research
Peer review of deliverable
Summary report on Current status of health and well-
being destinations, secondary research
Summary report on stakeholder research Peer review of deliverable
Summary report on framework for health and well-being
destination elements
5 - Creation of
Educational Material
Lead: Christian Husak
and Consultancy,
Austria
Creation of e-handbook and self-assessment and
development tool
Peer review of deliverable, pilot testing with feedback,
external auditors
6- Exploitation
Lead:UCB, England,
Harprit Thacker
Exploitation plan Draft discussed and approved by general consensus at
kickoff meeting, 2 rounds of feedback and alterations before
approval of final version
End project seminar and webinar Satisfaction evaluation form for events - specific form for the
event

3.4 Process Quality
Process quality will be monitored through summary reports, which are based on meeting or event questionnaires and
focus sessions, WP status reports, and evaluation reports from external audits. Process quality involves
Project progress meetings
Information about work progress
Focus sessions – These sessions will allow for more in-depth monitoring of key questions related to the project. They
will also provide a forum for complaints, suggestions, and satisfaction or dissatisfaction with changes and progress.
Quality will be included in the agendas, and focus sessions will take place at both partner meetings and Skype meetings.
WP status reports - Status reports ensure the quality of the WPs and should be submitted by each WP leader three
times per years to the Quality WP lead in order to compile the interim and end project progress reports.
WP status reports shall be structured as follows:
Introduction
Project activities - (summarize activities in the previous reporting period, list deliverables produced,
presentations given, meetings attended),
WP status - (including subtask reporting*) (Describe the WP started, continued or completed during reporting
period. Summarize their status – e.g. in progress, completed, etc).
(Status should include reference to the risk assessment matrix – noting any updates, new risks or changes,
continuing risks, and strategies that have been implemented to reduce risks).
Project deliverables status–(list deliverables and summarize their status [started, delivered, under evaluation,
accepted)
Comments on the project – (general issues arising from activities performed during the reporting period, new
risks that have arisen during the reporting period)
Project work plan – (forecast what progress is expected in next period and highlight any changes of plan with
respect to the quality plan and last status report)
*Subtask reporting – subtask leaders will send their own status reports to the lead of each WP they are involved in at
least 10 days before the submission of the WP status report.
Status Report Date
1 January 2013
2 May 2013
3 September 2013
4 January 2014
5 May 2014
6 September 2014

4 Communication
4.1 Meetings
Meetings are important to ensure the progress of WelDest and to maintain the technical and social relationships among
the partners in the project.
WelDest meeting types and topics to be covered:
Partner meetings - all relevant WPs on agenda
Location Date
Austria October 2012
CzechRepublic May 2013
Belgium October 2013
Germany March 2014
UK June 2014
Finland September 2014
Skype meetings - held at three levels:
1) WelDest management issues, with only management team participating
2) WelDest content issues where e.g. WPs are discussed and all the relevant members are attending
3) WelDest WP issues – one-on-one meetings between WP leaders and the project coordinator
National meetings - conducted by HEI to industry and associate members to discuss and advise on content
related issues.
Decisions in all international partner meetings will be made based on simple majority should consensus not be reached. If
the distribution of votes is even, the project manager’s vote decides. If the national meetings will not reach consensus, the
matter should be taken to the international (Skype) meeting for decision making.
4.2 Exchange of Documents, Correspondence
All documents and computer data files should be exchanged as much as possible viathe Optima workspace. Colleagues
should post in the general discussion area when a file has been added or changed. Colleagues are alerted to new
messages through a message sent to their work email.

5 Documents
5.1 Document Storage and Accessiblity
All documents are to be stored in the Optima workspace for visibility and use for all partners when needed.
Documents are to be stored in the following folders (folders may be added or updated as needed):
Folder/Content
Introduction to WelDest and Contacts
Full proposal and support documents - the project application and official documents related to the application
EACEA agreements and subcontracts - the official project award, evaluation feedback related to the
application
Reporting folders–LLPProject handbook 2012 and official reports submitted to the EACEA as part of the project
management process
Partner meetings 2012-2014 - Agendas, minutes, presentations, working papers for all partner meetings and
Skype meetings
Work packages 1-6 - Details of the working documents and outputs related to each work package
Photos, etc.
5.2 Outputs
Project outputs will be stored separately in the relevant folder in the Optima workspace as they are developed
5.3 Document Format
All documents will be saved in MS Word or MS Excel. A template (including font, built-in header, footer, page numbers,
etc.) to be used for the creation of Word documents can be found posted as a separate document in the WP 3 folder in
Optima.
Final versions of documents should be marked as final and uploaded to Optima in read-only format.
5.4 Nomenclature of Documents:
All documents must be listed giving for each the issue date, its name, version number (if necessary), status, the author’s
institution, and a sequential number to use as reference (R1,R2....Rn) in communication and correspondence.
Documents should be named as follows:
Date: yy.mm.dd
Document name: Chosen by author (the name should clearly identify the document by stating the purpose or information
it contains)
Version number: (v01, v02....)

Status – (draft, final)
Author’s institution: Authors should use the proper acronym for their institution (IHM, TUAS, UCB, FHJ, CHC)
Reference number: R1, R2....Rn (any change to the document must be followed up with a new reference number)
Example: 2012-10-11-QualityPlan-v01-Draft-IHM-R1
Example: 2012-11-01-PressRelease-FHJ-R6
In communication, the document can simply be referred to as Quality Plan R1 or Press Release R6.

Appendix 1 – Work packages and Subtasks
Work is divided into work packages and subtasks all with a lead partner and WP / sub task duration.
Health & well-being in tourism destination (WelDest) 1 2 3 2013 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2014 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Work Packages and Tasks
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Agu
Sep
WP1 Project management 24 months
ST 1 Project implementation plan
ST2 Financial management 30 % 30 %
ST3 Contract process
ST4 Reports for TUAS F&F F&F
ST5 Reports for EU 1.10 . 30.9.
ST6 Tenders if/ when needed
ST7 Partner meetings, agendas PM/AT PM/CZ PM/HU PM/DE PM/UK PM/FI
ST8 Partner meetings, minutes
Skype meetings to take place once a month S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.
WP 2 Dissemination 24 months
ST 1 Dissemination plan
ST 2 Dissemination follow up templates
ST 3 Blog
ST 4 Logo
ST 5 Power point presentations
ST 6 Project Newsletters & mailing lists from all partners 1 2 3 4 5
ST 7 Leaflet
ST 8 International event Berlin
ST 9 WelDest Camp workshop WS WS WS
ST 10 Media contacts
WP 3 Quality 24 months
ST 1 Quality plan
ST 2 WelDest meeting/workshop quality
ST 3 WelDest process quality
ST 4 Quality of outcomes
WP 4 Impl; research (16 months)
ST1 Research methodology plan
ST 2 Destination and consumer needs analyses (primary research) Plan
ST 3 Current status of H&WB destinations (secondary research) plan
ST 4 Stakeholder research (interviews and Open Space Technology)
ST 4 Summary and framework
WP 5 Impl: Creation of educational material (14 months)
ST 1 Development plan for educational material plan
ST 2 Creation of ehandbook
ST 3 Course design development including educator material
ST 4 Piloting of the educational material and the course design
ST 5 Improvements and amendments of the educational material
WP 6 Exploitation (24 months)
ST 1 exploitation plan plan
ST 2 exploitation follow up templates
ST 3 An article in a national, professional magazine
ST 4 Conference participation with an academic article
ST 5 End project seminar y.2014 with a webinar
call for
papers
call for
papers Finland
ST 6 Exploitation of the educational material and other outcomes

Appendix 2 – Risk Assessment Matrix
RISK ANALYSIS
PROJECT ACTIVITIES PROBLEM/RISK POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE
PROJECT
LEVEL OF IMPACT PROBABILITY ELIMINATION OF THE RISK
WP1
Project Management
R1.1 Risks stemming
from multidisciplinary
nature of partners
Failure to successfully
transfer knowledge and
experience from academia to
the industry partners
Critical Medium Smart and continuing
communication with all
partners
R1.2 Underestimation of
time needed to produce
deliverables
Tasks not completed /
Deliverables not submitted
on time
Critical Medium Ensure the successful
completion of the activities
and the validity of their
results; Project
management ensure timely
submission of deliverables
R1.3 Underestimation of
effort needed to
complete activities
Resource / Budget overrun /
Timetable overrun
Critical Low Management structured
so as to closely monitor
resource/budget
consumption – take
corrective actions
wherever necessary
R1.4 Lack of experience
and qualifications of staff
involved
Results of low quality Critical Low All partners commit
sufficient knowledge and
experience
R1.5 Issues related to
partners communication
Co-ordination problems /
Disputes among partners
Critical / Marginal Low Communication plan as a
part of Project
implementation plan

WP 2
Dissemination
R2.1. Dissemination
activities fail to target
the correct audiences.
The project may fail to get
the expected
end user satisfaction
Critical Medium Preparation of appropriate
dissemination materials.
Monitor feedback from
dissemination activities
WP 2
Dissemination
R2.2. Poor dissemination
towards the general
public
The project may fail to get
the wide acceptance and the
participation of the end
Users
Critical Medium Preparation of appropriate
dissemination materials.
Monitor feedback from
dissemination activities
R2.3. Poor common
promotion and
dissemination actions
Failure to establish a
common identity of project
as well as failure to
systematically expose the
knowledge and experience
gained of the relevant EU
projects to the relevant end
users group
Marginal Low Dissemination related
ideas, such as make use of
a range of tools in order to
effectively promote and
disseminates the project´s
results
WP 3
Quality
R3.1. Lack of experience
and qualifications of staff
involved
Low quality of Quality plan
and all quality processes
Critical Medium All partners commit
experience
R3.2. Issues related to
partner communication
Co-ordination problems Critical Low Communication plan as a
part of Project
implementation plan and
Quality plan
R3.3. Selection of
unsuitable external
specialists to audit
quality
Failure to produce quality
eHandbook&course design
and the Self/assessment &
development tool
Critical Medium Setting up the experience
with similar kind of
materials as the main
condition for choice
suitable external specialists
to audit quality

WP 4
Research
R4.1. Lack of experience
with primary and
secondary analysis
Setting up inappropriate
methodology
Critical Low All partners commit
experience
R4.2. Issues related to
partners communication
Co-ordination problems /
Collection of incorrect data
Critical Low Communication plan as a
part of Project
implementation plan and
Research methodology
plan
R4.3. Selection of wrong
destinations in each
country
Obtaining incomparable data Critical Medium Pilot research by the
partners. All teams working
with same definition and
core indicators of H&WB
destination
WP 5
Creation of Educational
material
Lack of sufficient quality
information resulting
from the research phase
Poor quality of e-
Handbook&course design
development tool
Critical Medium Project management
ensure timely submission
of deliverables of each WP
Lack of time Low quality of e-
Handbook&course design
development tool
Critical Low Project management
ensure compliance of time
plan
Other requests from the
partners countries
Different level (range) of use
of Educational materials by
the partners, tourism
experts, etc. in each country
Critical Low Communication with the
industry partners about
their needs and
expectation. Outcomes of
WP4/ST2 Destination and
consumer needs analyses,
primary research

WP 6
Exploitation
Lack of time Materials may not be seen as
current. Material will not
reach all target groups.
Critical Low Project management
ensure compliance of time
plan
Poor target market
selection
Information distribution will
be limited
Critical Medium Defining target groups and
methods to reach them
RISK EXPOSURE
IMPACT
PROBABILITY
HIGH MEDIUM LOW
UNCOTROLLABLE High High Medium
CRITICAL High Medium Medium
MARGINAL Medium Medium Low
NEGLIGIBLE Medium Low Low

WP3 Quality Management Plan

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (15)

Similaire à WP3 Quality Management Plan

Similaire à WP3 Quality Management Plan (20)

Plus de WelDest Project (Erasmus LLP)

Plus de WelDest Project (Erasmus LLP) (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

WP3 Quality Management Plan