Evaluation criteria

  • Consistency with the national open data strategy included in the “Digital Growth 2014-2020” document and with the National Agenda for valorising public information assets
  • Contribution to attaining the expected results (increased production of public data in open format, promoting a data quality culture, transparency and civic participation; sustainability and replicability of models), consistently with the result and output indicators for the OP
  • Consistency with the Guidelines for valorising the public information assets adopted by the Digital Agency for Italy and the best national and international practices
  • Pervasiveness of the skills development actions, in terms of both quality (e.g. professional roles involved) and quantity (e.g. percentage of employees and organization structures involved)
  • Manner and level of involvement of the pertinent partnerships (public authorities, economic and social partners and civil society organizations at the national, regional and local levels) in defining the transparency improvement and access to administration information goals
  • Innovation and quality of the tools for administrative capacity-building
  • Complementarity with Action 2.1.1
  • Contribution to attaining the expected results, consistently with the result and output indicators for the Action
  • Method approach quality, in terms of the capacity of active involvement in the target groups
  • Congruity of the proposed timeframe with the forecasted milestones and deliverables (degree of effectiveness)
  • Congruity of the cost plan with the forecasted activities and results and the working group employed (degree of efficiency)
  • Communicability and recognisability of the project results (on the basis of an effective communications plan)
  • Existence of an internal evaluation plan (quality)
  • Complementarity with other significant programming tools (regional/national operational programmes, SFC, other)
  • Consistency with the strategic guidelines and planning of the Simplification Agenda, provided by DL 90/2014 and with the Programme for measuring and downsizing administrative and regulatory burdens and reducing timelines
  • Consistency with the methods for analysing, measuring, cutting burdens and times, simplifying, evaluating and monitoring, as identified by the Department of Public Administration
  • Possession of specific skills and proven experience, in relation to the fields of the action of the project, such as business surveys, measurements, cutting burdens and times, simplification, shadowing and administrative capacity-building in the management of procedures for businesses
  • Experience in the definition and implementation of consultation activities, also using the stakeholders’ telematic tools
  • Innovation and quality of training methods (privileging active participation tools)
  • Contribution to attaining the expected results, consistently with the result and output indicators for the Action
  • Quality of the methodological approach, in terms of capacity of active involvement of the target groups and pertinent partnerships (public authorities, economic and social partners and civil society organizations at the national, regional and local levels)
  • Congruity of the proposed timeframe with the forecasted milestones and deliverables (degree of effectiveness)
  • Congruity of the cost plan with the forecasted activities and results and the working group employed (degree of efficiency)
  • Communicability and recognisability of the project results (on the basis of an effective communications plan)
  • Ability of the project to stimulate activities which address the needs of disabled people in order to allow full access to the funded services/products (eg. access to administrative data, ownership of IT systems to be accessible without discrimination deriving from disability)
  • Consistency with the national strategy for digital literacy included in the “Digital Growth 2014-2020” document
  • Quality of the methods for facilitating the reorganization of the functions and the associated management of the services (governance)
  • Solutions and methods for expanding the perimeter of services provided through multi-channelling
  • Innovation and quality of the training methods (privileging active participation tools)
  • Quality of process innovation methods
  • Pervasiveness of the skills development actions, in terms of both quality (e.g. professional roles involved) and quantity (e.g. percentage of employees and organization structures involved)
  • Complementarity with Action 2.1.1
  • Contribution to attaining the expected results, consistently with the result and output indicators of the pertinent OP for the action
  • Quality of the methodological approach, in terms of capacity of active involvement of the target groups and pertinent partnerships (public authorities, economic and social partners and civil society organizations at the national, regional and local levels)
  • Congruity of the proposed timeframe with the forecasted milestones and deliverables (degree of effectiveness)
  • Congruity of the cost plan with the forecasted activities and results and the working group employed (degree of efficiency)
  • Communicability and recognisability of the project results (on the basis of an effective communications plan)
  • Existence of an internal evaluation plan (quality)
  • Complementarity with other significant programming tools (regional/national operational programmes, SFC, other)
  • Ability of the project to stimulate activities which address the needs of disabled people in order to allow full access to the funded services/products (eg. access to administrative data, ownership of IT systems to be accessible without discrimination deriving from disability)
  • Quality of the skills mapping methods
  • Innovation and quality of training methods (privileging active participation tools)
  • Quality of process innovation methods
  • Contribution to attaining the expected results, consistently with the result and output indicators for the Action
  • Quality of the methodological approach, in terms of capacity of active involvement of the target groups and pertinent partnerships (public authorities, economic and social partners and civil society organizations at the national, regional and local levels)
  • Congruity of the proposed timeframe with the forecasted milestones and deliverables (degree of effectiveness)
  • Congruity of the cost plan with the forecasted activities and results and the working group employed (degree of efficiency)
  • Communicability and recognisability of the project results (on the basis of an effective communications plan)
  • Existence of an internal evaluation plan (quality)
  • Consistency and complementarity with other significant programming tools (regional/national operational programmes, SFC, other)
  • Ability of the project to stimulate activities which address the needs of disabled people in order to allow full access to the funded services/products (eg. access to administrative data, ownership of IT systems to be accessible without discrimination deriving from disability)
  • Innovation of the tools for administrative capacity-building
  • Innovation and quality of training methods (privileging active participation tools)
  • Contribution to attaining the expected results, consistently with the result and output indicators for the Action
  • Quality of the methodological approach, in terms of capacity of active involvement of the target groups and pertinent partnerships (public authorities, economic and social partners and civil society organizations at the national, regional and local levels)
  • Congruity of the proposed timeframe with the forecasted milestones and deliverables (degree of effectiveness)
  • Congruity of the cost plan with the forecasted activities and results and the working group employed (degree of efficiency)
  • Communicability and recognisability of the project results (on the basis of an effective communications plan)
  • Existence of an internal evaluation plan (quality)
  • Complementarity with other significant programming tools (regional/national operational programmes, SFC, other)
  • Ability of the project to stimulate activities which address the needs of disabled people in order to allow full access to the funded services/products (eg. access to administrative data, ownership of IT systems to be accessible without discrimination deriving from disability)
  • Innovation and quality of the system approach
  • Innovation and quality of the tools for administrative capacity-building
  • Effectiveness of the training activities according to the best international practices
  • Quality of the methods for identifying, selecting and valorising the best practices
  • Exploitation of successful experiences
  • Contribution to attaining the expected results, consistently with the result and output indicators for the Action
  • Quality of the methodological approach, in terms of capacity of active involvement of the target groups and pertinent partnerships (public authorities, economic and social partners and civil society organizations at the national, regional and local levels)
  • Congruity of the proposed timeframe with the forecasted milestones and deliverables (degree of effectiveness)
  • Congruity of the cost plan with the forecasted activities and results and the working group employed (degree of efficiency)
  • Communicability and recognisability of the project results (on the basis of an effective communications plan)
  • Existence of an internal evaluation plan (quality)
  • Consistency and complementarity with other significant programming tools (regional/national operational programmes, SFC, other)
  • Ability of the project to stimulate activities which address the needs of disabled people in order to allow full access to the funded services/products (eg. access to administrative data, ownership of IT systems to be accessible without discrimination deriving from disability)
  • Consistency with the reform framework for the “reorganization of the public administration”
  • Administrative capacity building, with respect to the different dimensions (quality of human resources, functionality of organization, solidity of performance and management system, level of digitisation, management of inter-institutional relations) and with the pertinent partnerships (public authorities, economic and social partners and civil society organizations at the national, regional and local levels)
  • Effectiveness of the training activities according to the best international practices
  • Contribution to restructuring of public expenditure
  • Achievement of economies of scale
  • Scalability of operations
  • Existence of elements of complementarity with Action 2.2.2
  • Contribution to attaining the expected results, consistently with the result and output indicators for the Action
  • Quality of the methodological approach, in terms of capacity of active involvement of the target groups and pertinent partnerships (public authorities, economic and social partners and civil society organizations at the national, regional and local levels)
  • Congruity of the proposed timeframe with the forecasted milestones and deliverables (degree of effectiveness)
  • Congruity of the cost plan with the forecasted activities and results and the working group employed (degree of efficiency)
  • Communicability and recognisability of the project results (on the basis of an effective communications plan)
  • Existence of an internal evaluation plan (quality)
  • Consistency and complementarity with other significant programming tools (regional/national operational programmes, SFC, other)
  • Ability of the project to stimulate activities which address the needs of disabled people in order to allow full access to the funded services/products (eg. access to administrative data, ownership of IT systems to be accessible without discrimination deriving from disability)
  • Consistency with the national strategy set out in the “Digital Growth 2014-2020” document, with regard to actions for a Digital Justice System
  • Consistency with the regulatory and implementation provision regarding organizational models for courts and judicial offices, and with the applicable provisions laid down in D.L. 90/2014 in relation to the process office
  • Capacity to achieve the permanent improvement of the structures involved in delivering services to users
  • Level of innovation: quality of the methodological approach in terms of the provision of innovative tools designed to foster the dissemination of operational organizational models in support of the actions of the judicial authorities
  • Contribution to attaining the expected results, consistently with the result and output indicators for the Action
  • Congruity of the proposed timeframe with the forecasted milestones and deliverables (degree of effectiveness)
  • Testing of replicable models and methods capable of generating further projects, to improve the organizational efficiency of the courts and judicial offices
  • Complementarity with other significant programming tools (regional/national operational programmes, SFC, other)
  • Ability of the project to stimulate activities which address the needs of disabled people in order to allow full access to the funded services/products (eg. access to administrative data, ownership of IT systems to be accessible without discrimination deriving from disability)
  • Specificity of context analysis for risk assessment
  • Quality of methods for risk analysis
  • Innovation and quality of training methods (privileging the acquisition of specific risk analysis skills)
  • Innovation and quality of the tools for administrative capacity-building
  • Quality of the organizational analysis through identification of the risk factors and the levers for definition corruption prevention strategies
  • Consistency of operations with the transparency and communication policies
  • Complementarity with action 1.1.1
  • Effectiveness of proposed monitoring and verification tools
  • Ability of the project to stimulate activities which address the needs of disabled people in order to allow full access to the funded services/products (eg. access to administrative data, ownership of IT systems to be accessible without discrimination deriving from disability)
  • Contribution to the national strategy on “Digital Growth 2014-2020”
  • Capacity to enhance performance (e.g. time to access/release data)
  • Level of innovation of proposed solutions, in terms of usability and civic participation
  • Congruity of the proposed timeframe with the forecasted milestones and deliverables (degree of effectiveness)
  • Valorising economies of scale
  • Complementarity with Action 1.1.1
  • Congruity of the cost plan with the forecasted activities
  • Contribution to attaining the expected results, consistently with the result and output indicators for the Action
  • Communicability and recognisability of the project results (on the basis of an effective communications plan)
  • Existence of an internal evaluation plan (quality)
  • Consistency and complementarity with other significant programming tools (regional/national operational programmes, SFC, other)
  • Ability of the project to stimulate activities which address the needs of disabled people in order to allow full access to the funded services/products (eg. access to administrative data, ownership of IT systems to be accessible without discrimination deriving from disability)
  • Consistency with the national strategy “Digital Growth 2014-2020” and with the use of national infrastructure (e.g. public digital identity system, electronic payments and interoperability) provided by the CAD and with the reform framework for the “reorganization of public administration” (digital citizenship)
  • Capacity to enhance the performance of administrative processes
  • Level of impact on environmental and social sustainability
  • Innovation of proposed solutions, in terms of usability potential
  • Impact of proposed solutions on associated management of services
  • Complementarity with Action 1.3.1
  • Valorising economies of scale
  • Contribution to attaining the expected results, consistently with the result and output indicators for the Action
  • Congruity of the proposed timeframe with the forecasted milestones and deliverables (degree of effectiveness)
  • Congruity of the cost plan with the forecasted activities and results and the working group employed (degree of efficiency)
  • Communicability and recognisability of the project results (on the basis of an effective communications plan)
  • Existence of an internal evaluation plan (quality)
  • Complementarity with other significant programming tools (regional/national operational programmes, SFC, other)
  • Ability of the project to stimulate activities which address the needs of disabled people in order to allow full access to the funded services/products (eg. access to administrative data, ownership of IT systems to be accessible without discrimination deriving from disability)
  • Consistency with the reform framework for the “reorganization of public administration”
  • Interoperability with the principal PA information systems
  • Capacity to enhance the performance of administrative processes
  • Innovation of proposed solutions, in terms of usability potential
  • Valorising economies of scale
  • Complementarity with Action 1.3.5
  • Contribution to attaining the expected results, consistently with the result and output indicators for the Action
  • Congruity of the proposed timeframe with the forecasted milestones and deliverables (degree of effectiveness)
  • Congruity of the cost plan with the forecasted activities and results and the working group employed (degree of efficiency)
  • Communicability and recognisability of the project results (on the basis of an effective communications plan)
  • Existence of an internal evaluation plan (quality)
  • Complementarity with other significant programming tools (regional/national operational programmes, SFC, other)
  • Ability of the project to stimulate activities which address the needs of disabled people in order to allow full access to the funded services/products (eg. access to administrative data, ownership of IT systems to be accessible without discrimination deriving from disability)
  • Consistency with the national strategy set out in the “Digital Growth 2014-2020” document, with regard to actions for a Digital Justice System
  • Consistency with the regulatory and implementation provision regarding digitization of civil and criminal proceedings
  • Consistency with the needs arising from the priority strategies on cutting the length of civil and criminal proceedings
  • Complementarity with Action 1.4.1
  • Capacity to transfer innovative experiences to other contexts, also with a view to harmonising the areas relating to civil and criminal proceedings
  • Contribution to attaining the expected results, consistently with the result and output indicators for the Action
  • Ability of the project to stimulate activities which address the needs of disabled people in order to allow full access to the funded services/products (eg. access to administrative data, ownership of IT systems to be accessible without discrimination deriving from disability)
  • Consistency with the horizontal needs arising from specific strategic requirements and/or emerging from the Administrative Capacity-Building Plans (PRA) according to the instructions of the PRA Steering Committee
  • Capacity to achieve permanent improvement goals for the structures involved in the definition and implementation of the public investment programmes
  • Congruity of the proposed timeframe with the forecasted activities
  • Congruity of the cost plan with the forecasted activities and results
  • Innovation in the methodological approach
  • Exploitation and further development of “best practices” under previous programming process
  • Involvement of recipients in testing and validating results
  • Ability of the project to stimulate activities which address the needs of disabled people in order to allow full access to the funded services/products (eg. access to administrative data, ownership of IT systems to be accessible without discrimination deriving from disability)
  • Consistency with the institutionally defined evaluation needs
  • Capacity to achieve permanent improvement goals for the structures involved in the definition and implementation of the public investment programmes
  • Definition and dissemination of evaluation methods (ex ante, in itinere and ex‐post)
  • Technical methodological quality and innovation of proposals
  • Congruity of the cost plan with the forecasted activities and results
  • Exploitation and further development of “best practices” under previous programming process
  • Involvement of recipients in testing and validating results
  • Ability of the project to stimulate activities which address the needs of disabled people in order to allow full access to the funded services/products (eg. access to administrative data, ownership of IT systems to be accessible without discrimination deriving from disability)
  • Consistency with the European code of conduct for implementing the partnership principle
  • Capacity to achieve permanent improvement goals in partnership management
  • Capacity to contribute to the social debate
  • Testing cutting-edge techniques, models and tools (Pilot Projects), very easily replicable in other contexts and with the capacity to generate further projects
  • Congruity of the cost plan with the forecasted activities and results
  • Exploitation and further development of “best practices” under previous programming process
  • Ability of the project to stimulate activities which address the needs of disabled people in order to allow full access to the funded services/products (eg. access to administrative data, ownership of IT systems to be accessible without discrimination deriving from disability)
  • Consistency with the statistical and information needs defined according to the Partnership Agreement in other institutional fields
  • Adoption of common quality standards also for meeting related ex ante conditions
  • Congruity of the cost plan with the forecasted activities and results
  • Innovative methodological approach features
  • Exploitation and further development of “best practices” under previous programming process
  • Ability of the project to stimulate activities which address the needs of disabled people in order to allow full access to the funded services/products (eg. access to administrative data, ownership of IT systems to be accessible without discrimination deriving from disability)
  • Consistency with the aims of the local government reform
  • Quality of the analysis tools in the specific reference context
  • Level of innovation: quality of the methodological approach, in terms of the forecasted innovative management and organization tools (performance, risks, quality) consistent with the financial programming tools
  • Quality of tools for surveying the needs of specific skills in relation to the reference ERDF areas
  • Complementarity with Action 2.2.2
  • Contribution to attaining the expected results, consistently with the result and output indicators for the Action
  • Quality of the methodological approach, in terms of capacity of active involvement of the target groups and pertinent partnerships (public authorities, economic and social partners and civil society organizations at the national, regional and local levels) (e.g. co-planning and participated dialogue tools)
  • Congruity of the proposed timeframe with the forecasted milestones and deliverables (degree of effectiveness)
  • Congruity of the cost plan with the forecasted activities and results and the working group employed (degree of efficiency)
  • Communicability and recognisability of the project results (on the basis of an effective communications plan)
  • Existence of an internal evaluation plan (quality)
  • Consistency and complementarity with other significant programming tools (regional/national operational programmes, SFC, other)
  • Ability of the project to stimulate activities which address the needs of disabled people in order to allow full access to the funded services/products (eg. access to administrative data, ownership of IT systems to be accessible without discrimination deriving from disability)
  • Clear adherence to the Technical Assistance needs of the OP
  • Adequacy of the proposed methodologies and management capacities compared to the objectives
  • Conformity with the planning documents (Evaluation Plan, Communications Plan)
  • Adequacy of the established supervision methods and standards
  • Clear adherence to the Technical Assistance needs for governance of the Partnership Agreement
  • Adequacy of the proposed methodologies and management capacities compared to the objectives
  • Conformity with the planning documents (Evaluation Plan of the Partnership Agreement)
  • Conformity with the information and communication goals relating to the overnall national strategy of the Partnership Agreement
X