Coordination and Management
Sharing the responsibilities.
Coordination and management with COPHES
The DEMOCOPHES project leaders worked together with the COPHES project and Work Packages leaders in the Coordination Team. This body was responsible for the follow-up of processes concerning both projects. Through regular phone conferences as well as meetings the progress made, the critical issues and the decisions were discussed.
Coordination and management with the countries
A DEMOCOPHES team has been put in place within the FPS in order to tackle all technical, administrative and financial issues.
To facilitate the follow-up of emails regarding the project, the common mail box firstname.lastname@example.org was created. For a structured availability of documents and to facilitate exchange, the extranet CIRCA Interest Group “(DEMO)COPHES” was managed by the FPS. Overall progress made, exchange of experiences, answers to questions and decisions were discussed in trainings and meetings which took place in 2010 (Berlin-September, Brussels-October), in 2011 (Brussels-February, Budapest-April, Berlin-June, Brussels-November) and in 2012 (Copenhagen-March, Leuven-July, Munchen-October, Larnaca-October).
Two kinds of contracts have been established with the countries. Partnership Agreements were signed with 16 partners receiving co-funding from the Commission for implementing the study. Membership Agreements were concluded for 5 countries receiving only a limited funding for taking part in meetings. These countries exchanged their knowledge and expertise and one of them implemented the study as well.
Coordination and management in the countries
The project management at national level was insured by National Management Units (NMU) which were embedded in the existing project management systems. They were responsible for translation and adaptation of the European protocol to fit national circumstances and for preparation and follow-up of the implementation. In each country, the survey office was the central unit for conducting field work and was responsible for the management of participants’ sampling and recruitment. Depending on the structure, the survey office was located in the NMU or in the institution responsible for the field work.