Tag: sustainability

How to assess applicant’s potential for participating in the project

Can we predict if an applicant is ready to fully participate in a project? Despite thorough application processes that include eligibility checks, financial assessments, and formal agreements, projects often struggle with applicants who fail to meet participation expectations. Why does this happen, and can we avoid it?

Projects must achieve defined goals. They also must follow procedures. When including, for instance an SME, in the project, usually some procedure is applied, e.g. public call for expression of interest or for submitting an application form, with clear guidelines for applicants. The guidelines define who can apply, for what kind of support and what can be done within the project, i.e. what are eligible activities. The application form is usually supported by documentation such as registration documents and financial statements, proving the applicant’s experience and financial capacities, with some indication of human resources, since these documents include information on number of employees. Based on submitted application and documents, evaluation committee assesses if the application and the applicant are eligible for support. If so, the contract is signed, defining precisely the obligations of contracting parties.

Despite all that, which all seems very logical and comprehensive, from time to time there are difficulties with real participation of parties that applied for support from the project. Why is this happening, despite all precisely defined requirements and descriptions of support?

Registration documents only show whether the applicant is legally eligible, i.e. registered in an eligible legal form, no more than that.  

Financial statements do give a clear picture of an applicant’s finance status, how much assets they have, if they are in debt and similar. However, it does not give information on what an applicant intends to do with their money. Yes, we can say that they applied for participation in the project, being aware of obligations such as co-funding and that is correct. However, sometimes circumstances change, and new priorities occur that the applicant must respond to. Or simply, the applicant changes opinion on participation in the project. Sometimes, despite all the signed papers, participation in the project was seen only as one of the options and possible focuses of the applicant, without honest and strong commitment. This leads to problems in active participation in implementing project activities and in co-funding, which is necessary to implement the project. Then it depends on the nature of the project. If the requirements for active participation of the applicant are not high, things may be fine. E.g. if they need to buy and install new machine, it may go well. But if they need to participate in development of software solutions, which require multiple iterations of work with the service provider, it is very likely there will be difficulties.

Also, documentation, such as financial statements, does give information on the number of employees, some documentation even on the structure in terms of education and experience. But it does not give information on how busy they are with other tasks, which impacts the time they can dedicate to participation in the project. Not to mention that there is no indication of their interest and motivation to participate. So, often all looks good on the surface, but as the implementation goes on, things under the surface start to come up, making implementation difficult.

And probably the most difficult thing to understand is why anyone would agree to participation in the project if they do not have a clear picture about implementation requirements and possible benefits. Yes, that is possible, despite all phone calls, visits, emails and promotional materials. You do control communication on your side, but you do not control the recipient of messages and cannot be 100% sure of their understanding and acceptance. So, it might happen that the applicant does not have a clear idea of benefits from the project and the requirements to reach those benefits. Accordingly, there may be issues during the implementation with the active participation of the applicant, in all forms. There are different reasons for that. Circumstances change affecting priorities, capacities of the applicant change, human or financial, or simply opinion changes, affecting readiness to work on project implementation.

Due to all these reasons, we have cases where co-funding from applicant is delayed, participation of their staff is not timely and sufficient, and even if we reach the end of project and achieve defined results, the applicant may not be sure what to do with that, how to capitalize on project results, how to ensure sustainable benefits. In such a situation, impact and sustainability are questionable, despite good relevance, efficiency, and effectiveness.

How to deal with this?

As hard as it could be, trying to include more qualitative dimensions in evaluation process may be part of solution. Visit the company, talk to staff, see the real picture. Develop an evaluation that takes this into account, being aware of all the risks some subjectiveness in the process may cause. Namely, even if we find a way to include visits in the evaluation process, we could also be misled by the findings of the visit. E.g. we may see modern equipment in a factory, leading us to think that this is a capable company. However, having modern equipment does not necessarily mean that human resources are also developed. It may also mean that investments have already been made, leaving little or no money for new improvements. Some good solutions seen during the visit may be the result of the work of some person that has left the company. And the list goes on. Caution is needed, but benefits are also possible.

Also, make efforts on bringing closer expectations and possibilities. The expectations of the applicant should be well understood. Possibilities offered by a project should be clearly communicated to the applicant. If possible, the offer of the project could be adjusted to identified expectations, but the space for that is usually very limited. Although even a good understanding of expectations and possibilities on both sides is not a guarantee that all obligations will be fulfilled, this looks like a solid ground for cooperation. So, listen carefully to the applicants needs and wishes, explain all in detail in the application package (guidelines and forms) presenting the opportunities within the project, check understanding and get the real attention of applicants in all phases of the project. Collect all possible data and information to help you to determine if the applicant is really willing and capable to participate in project implementation. Questions on the applicant’s plans for the forthcoming period may be useful to indicate if there is a real intention to participate in the project, i.e. is there a real need and willingness to implement the activities within the project. Keep open and dynamic communication during the implementation period, linking all capacities and timely sharing information, thus ensuring the momentum during implementation. Keeping such communication active continuously, in periods between projects, is quite challenging but can also be very useful for planning and implementing new projects. And once the project is implemented, provide applicants with guidelines needed to achieve sustainable desired impact. Now and then, reflect on experiences and introduce changes, they will certainly be needed.

Sustainability needs flexibility

One of the required aspects of every project is sustainability. It may be interpreted on various levels – as sustainability of project results, such as new jobs created within the project or as sustainability of structures established within the project, such as organization providing specific type of support to SMEs, for instance. Both results are subject to an ever-changing environment. Accordingly, jobs created within a project may not exist in five or ten years. It does not necessarily mean that this part of the project failed, since it may be the case that jobs created have evolved into more advanced positions or persons employed have found a better job. Also, it depends on how we define sustainability, i.e., which aspect of sustainability we observe. In the described example, is it sustainability of a position within an enterprise, is it a permanent, full-time employment of the employee, or it is employability of the person employed?

It gets more complicated when it comes to sustainability of structures established within the project. Namely, most often structures are established to perform certain function in a relevant landscape. For instance, a center for supporting the introduction of digital solutions in SMEs. Usually, the expectation of the funder as the entity that provided financial and sometimes technical support in the establishing phase is that the newly established center will continue to provide initially defined type of support to SMEs. In some cases, this works, in others, it does not. Why is that the case and how does this look from the point of view of sustainability?

The funders usually want the newly established organization to provide the type of support they believe is needed for SMEs in the long period of time. Even though this type of support may be high on their agenda it may not be high on the agenda of most enterprises. It means that market demand for this type of support is not strong enough to ensure sustainability of the newly established organization if the sustainability is defined as capability to cover costs of existence and services of organization through selling the services in the market. So, there are two options – either the funder continues to fund the organization that continues to provide defined type of service, thus turning from funder into a client, or the organization adjusts its focus and capacities and starts providing services that are required in the market. It seems that, again, it is the role initially defined as needed vs. an ever-changing environment. In some cases, it may happen that initially defined services really become interesting to the target group, thus giving the opportunity to the organization to become sustainable without adjustments to the environment and market demand. But how likely it is nowadays, bearing in mind the dynamics of changes? So, if the sustainability of the organization is the goal, it should not be denied flexibility usually needed for adjusting and surviving in changing environment. Also, it may be considered as fair by the funder if the organization supported provided services required by the funder as long as funding was available, and once the financial support stops, from that point on it starts providing services required in the market. The capacity initially established will stay and the organization can start providing initially planned services again once the market demand occurs. This seems much more rational from the point of view of the funder than insisting on continuous focusing of the organization on services that are not required, thus bringing into question the sustainability of the organization.