Seed Alliance Evaluation Criteria

The three regional programs evaluated the projects that were given Grants based on the following criteria. The criteria was applied when proposal was approved as well as to the Final Reports submitted by the Grant Recipients are also assessed under the same criteria. A score card for each supported project can be seen when hovering over the Supported Projects map.

CATEGORY WEIGHT RELATIVE WEIGHT CATEGORY
8 PROJECT CONSISTENCY
20 The objectives are clearly specified
20 There is a well-known methodology
20 The resources provided are sufficent and appropriate in terms of quantity and quality
40 The link between objectives, methodology and resources are clearly demonstrated
100 Subtotal
7 REGIONAL RELEVANCE OF THE ISSUE DESCRIBED
30 A regional problem has been clearly identified as an issue to be solved
30 The problem identified is an ICT issue
40 Importance of the issue for the region has been clearly demonstrated
100 Subtotal
10 ACHIEVABLE AND MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES
40 Performance indicators have been clearly elaborated
20 The objectives are achievable
20 The objectives are measurable
20 The objectives are verifiable
100 Subtotal
9 INNOVATIVE CHARACTER
25 There is an innovative aspect in the project
25 There is an innovation in the field of ICT
25 This is a new initiative in the region
25 The technology has never been developed
100 Subtotal
10 EXECUTION CAPACITY
30 There is a clear project management plan
20 The project management plan is consistent with the objectives
25 The project team has all the knowledge to implement the activities
25 The plan has strictly been followed during the implementation stage
100 Subtotal
8 BUDGET
50 A financial plan has been submitted
50 The expenses have been made accordingly to the plan
100 Subtotal
8 MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN
40 A monitoring and evaluation plan exists and has been submitted to the ISIF program team
30 Monitoring and evaluation actions have been performed during the implementation stage
30 Both report contains a chapter on the monitoring and evaluation actions performed during the project
100 Subtotal
8 CAPACITY BUILDING
40 A capacity building plan has been identified by the project team
20 The project team is one of the beneficiaries of the capacity building plan
40 The capacity building plan includes more people than just the project team
100 Subtotal
8 REPLICABILITY
30 There is an interest in other countries for the same project
35 The proposal demonstrated the feasibility of the project in other countries
35 The report proposed some means to replicate the project in other countries
100 Subtotal
7 IMPACT
50 Impact of the project has been clearly identified in the proposal
50 Reports show the the contribution of the project through the achievement of the impact
100 Subtotal
9 SUSTAINABILITY
30 Reports clearly demonstrate sustainability of the project beyond the funding period
40 Project team put in place innovative means to ensure sustainability of the project beyond the funding period
30 External partners demonstrate interest in financing the project beyond the funding period
100 Subtotal
8 REPORTS
15 Technical reports have been submitted
15 Financial reports have been submitted
30 Reports have been submitted on time
40 Both Report follows the requirements in terms of quality
100 Subtotal
100 OVERALL SCORES
AVERAGE SCORE PROPOSAL VS. REPORT
(PROPOSAL + REPORT) / 2
Share this article