KA2 - Intergenerational Learning Partnership Over 55
Kick-Off Meeting-Day 1
Date: 23rd October 2014
Venue – MCAST Institute of Business and Commerce - Room 10
Institutions and their respective representatives attending the kick off meeting










MCAST (Lead Partner)
o Ramon Mangion
o Albert Agius
EUPA (National Agency)
o Natalie Muscat
o Jessica Giordmaina
Associazione EFFEBI
o Mario Spatafora
o Ana Maria Cotovanu
SCIENTER Espana S.L.
o Claudio Dondi
o Aleix Soler
IFS Malta
o Peter Calleya
o Vanessa Bajada
o Joseph Agius
Institute of Banking Education NBS
o Peter Szovics
MUBE
o William Portelli
o Joanna Walbank
MBN
o Marika Huber
UNINETTUNO
o Luciano Di Mele
NIBE-SVV
o Clemens Spoorenber
o Koen Venekamp
There was no representative of ANUP since the person responsible was hospitalized
1|Page
Agenda
Thursday 23rd October 2014
Time
Activity
09:00
Welcome Coffee
09:15
Welcome Address - MCAST
09:30
Introduction of each partner
9.30am - 9.40am - P1 - MCAST
9.40am - 9.50am - P2 - Effebi Association
9.50am - 10.00am - P3 - Institute of Banking Education NBS
10.00am - 10.10am - P4 - IFS - Malta
10.10am - 10.20am - P5 - Malta Union of Bank Employees MUBE
10.20am - 10.30am - P6 - Mediterranean Bank Network MBN
10.30am - 10.40am - P7 - Uninettuno (Universita` telematica Internazionale)
10.40am - 10.50am - P8 - NIBE-SVV
10.50am - 11.00am - P9 - Scienter Espana S.L.
11.00am - 11.10am - P10 - ANUP-International
11:15
Coffee Break
11:30
Analysis of the project evaluation results (lessons learned)
12:00
Plenary Discussion
12:30
Lunch
13:30
Discussion/ Presentation of each Output by each respective Leader (objectives,
performance indicators, role of Partners, approaches, etc.)
16:15 - 16:30 Closure Day 1
2|Page
1. Introduction of each partner
Mr. Ramon Mangion started the Kick-Off meeting by welcoming the projectpartners as well as
giving a run through of the agenda to be followed on the day. He gave a brief introduction and
also introduced Mr. Josef Buttigieg, the Director of the Institute of Business and Commerce, who
gave the welcoming speech. Mr. Buttigieg gave a brief introduction to MCAST as well as an
introduction to the Institute of Business and Commerce and the courses offered by the institute.
Mr. Mangion than continued by giving a brief introduction to MCAST He gave some
information about the number of students at MCAST and also stated that throughout this
academic year MCAST launched the New Curriculum which was developed thanks through the
ESF 1.130 and ESF 3.102 projects. He stated that the College is presently going through a lot of
changes. Mr. Mangion also mentioned other Projects that MCAST participated in; amongst
others he mentioned ECVET and EQAVET and their implementation in Malta.
Mr. Mangion then gave the floor to the different partners involved in the project to present their
entity and their expectations in relation to the project..
He also stated that the consortium involved in this project is made up of experienced
professionals from different areas of finance, education as well as tradeunions. It includes a high
level of experience in European projects which were managed successfully thus making this a
very rich consortium
1.1 Presentation Points






The consortium has a good representation of European countries with participants
coming from various EU countries
Participants have close ties and good working relationships with the banks in their
respective countries as well as a vast experience in the financial industry and experience
with European projects
Some of the participants in this project have vast experience in the creation and running
of courses in relation to the continuous professional education of professionals in the
sector.
Participants have knowledge and examples of good practices in relation to the education
of professionals in the field that one can view and apply for this project and can also
provide their insight especially in the light of the 55+, in the advent of keeping people
with experience in the working industry.
The members already have experiences and close liaisons with stakeholders to be able to
identify the needs in relation to the position of employees over 55 years and determine
the types of actions needed to encourage them to remain in employment after retirement.
An important factor that features is that for this project to be successful there has to be a
change of mentality, that is the idea that one remains in employment rather than retiring
3|Page

since their experience is very important. Therefore, promoting this project is very
important to start creating awareness.
Also some of participants already have hands on experience in relation to the expected
outcome of this project. In fact an example that was mentioned regards 50+ retired bank
employees who 3 years ago have given workshops about basic financial skills and
concepts in the schools of Catalonia. This has reached 30% of school students. These
retired employees stated that it had been a very rewarding experience from which they
had learnt a lot.
2.0 Analysis of the project evaluation results (lessons learned)
With the closure of the presentations the next item on the agenda was the Evaluation of Project
results where Mr. Mangion went through selection letter sent by the National Agency that also
included the assessment results of the project.
In his presentation Mr. Mangion highlighted the relevance of the project and its impact and
dissemination. Mr. Mangion concluded by stating that it is a clear defined project with well
identified aims, objects, sector and target groups
The project has an excellent partnership and a good mix of competences and skills. He continued
by saying that it is also a project aligned along Europe’s policies and strategies and also targeting
national policies in the VET sector.
Reference was also made to the only recommendation mentioned in this letter. This mainly
stated that the project could have targeted the over 50 instead of the over 55. This would have
resulted in a wider audience.
3.0 Plenary Discussion
Mr. Mario Spatafora opened the discussion by stating that he is very proud of the result
presented in the selection letter. He stated that the 2 main outcomes are
1. To reach a concrete written intergenerational agreement between the 2 generations young
and old
2. Ensure that by the end of the project there is something to build on. To show that there is
good understanding, and to implement and apply such criteria in this sector and also other
sectors, where each participant can do this within his/her own country.
Mr. William Portelli, from the Union of Bank Employees, continued reinforcing the importance
and weighting of this project. He made reference to a comment passed earlier by one of the
participants, where he gave an example of what it meant to arrive at that age. Mr. Portelli
continued by saying that presently the issue of early retirements has calmed down since more
and more people are remaining in employment after the age of 55, however he once again
stressed the fact that it is a question of mentality. He said that we should instill a mentality
4|Page
whereby the skills of over 55 employees are put to good use in the mentoring of younger
generations rather than losing it through retirement. He said that if we manage to change this
mentality from day 1, this project can be very influential on this age bracket.
Mr. Claudio Dondi continued reinforcing the above by stating that this project will offer practical
solutions. He stressed that there is the need to inspire and convince people before producing. He
continued by saying that if the team rushes, the outcome will be something superficial, on the
other hand he said that one must also avoid the risk of discussing infinitely. He stated that the
process to be followed for the project’s success should be to think during the first year, to test in
the second year and finally to implement in the third year.
Following this discussion, Mr. Albert Agius than introduced the Project’s Activity Management
Matrix where he gave an overview of the Intellectual Outputs, Activities and Ownership. Mr.
Agius also pointed out that Output 6 and Output 8 had anomalies with one of the activities which
needed to be discussed. Mr. Agius concluded his overview by stating that MCAST will forward
the matrix with the updates and amendments to the participants.
Following the run through of the Project’s Activity Management Matrix, Ms. Cotovanu put
forward a suggestion to merge both documents, by integrating the matrix and the Gant chart
where one can see the dates of each activity, time frames and ownership. This suggestion was
taken on board by everyone and it was decided to add 2 columns to the Gant chart with the
additional information.
Action: Merge Project’s Activity Management Matrix with the Gant Chart so the Gant chart
would have 2 more columns with the additional information
4.0 Discussion on Project Outputs
4.1 Presentation by Dr. Peter Szovics IBE NBS – Project Evaluator (Output 1)
According to the Gantt Chart – Output 1 states that the tools for the project evaluation must be
produced by the end of the year.
A discussion ensued about the Evaluation Report since it was stated in the Intellectual Outputs
that 3 Evaluation Reports must be produced by the end of the project. Ms. Cotovanu stated that
according to the grant Agreement we only need to produce 1 Interim Report and 1 Final Report.
As written in Article 1.4.2 – Special conditions:


Interim Report to be submitted on April 2016
Final Evaluation Report to be submitted December 2017
This means that one of the outputs in the Application form – output 7 Evaluation report – is extra
and it can be removed.
5|Page
However, it was concluded that before taking such decision to remove Output 7 (that is the
second interim report) it was decided that it was best to discuss with the National Agency.
Dr. Szovics’ presentation ensued. He discussed the evaluation outputs, work packages, needs
and gaps analysis, courses, the creation of a framework as one of the main outputs. He stated that
the outcomes of the project are broader than the outputs. Then he continued by mentioning
impact and dissemination, reaching the stakeholders and the dissemination of results.
The tools that will be used for this project are:
1. Standardised Questionnaires, the first one will be used for the kick-off meeting. These
questionnaires will be distributed during each partners meeting. These questionnaires are made
up of various questions, with 3 open questions in the end where the participants have more
freedom to express what they think. A report would be compiled by IBE NBS with the replies
given in the questionnaires.
Seminars and Final Conference – Designed Questionnaires which are specific for these events
2. Interviews – The Outputs and Outcomes of the project, what is going to be produced, How to
improve, the selection of the institution as well as sending the output.
3. Evaluation Matrix – this will include the number of people present in the final conference;
the numbers of hits on the website which are tools that will evaluate the impact and
dissemination of the project.
Dr. Szovics also spoke about the peer review process on the deliverables. He also asked
everyone to look at the questionnaires and discuss them Mr Dondi raised an issue about question
1 which read: Was all the information supplied before the meeting accordingly. He asked
whether this can be skipped for the Kick off meeting since he only received correspondence from
MCAST one week prior to the event. Mr Mangion clarified that the emails were being sent to the
contact persons listed in Application and that MCAST was only informed about Mr Dondi’s
contact details only during the last week prior to the kick off meeting.
Following this discussion it was decided that MCAST should circulate a list amongst all the
partners including all the contact information.
It was also suggested that the evaluation reports should be sent with the minutes rather than wait
till the next meeting for the evaluation in order to allow time to work on the feedback gathered .
Dr. Szovics agreed with this and stated that he will be sending a concise report for everyone to
look at on their own to than discuss together during the following next meetings.
Mr. Mangion suggested that it was best if the report is sent to MCAST who will than circulate it
with the minutes to the other participants.
6|Page
Therefore it was agreed that the Evaluation Report and the Minutes will be sent to MCAST who
will than distribute to the rest of the participants.
In the meantime EUPA joined the meeting and they confirmed that only 2 Evaluation reports
are required the interim and the final Evaluation Report. It was stated that a 2nd interim would
only be required if the 70% is not spent in the running of the project.
Conclusions from Output 1:




The Steering Committee will be composed of EFFEBI, IFS, MCAST and IBE NBS
There will be 2 Evaluation Reports and not 3
To create a list with partner communication details and circulate with partners (including
skype addresses)
MCAST will circulate minutes, evaluation report and action plan to all partners
4.2 Discussions in relation to Output 2 (The Website)
This output refers to the creation of the Website which is the responsibility of UNINETTUNO,
who was represented by Mr. Luciano DiMele.
At this point Mr. Mangion opened the discussion by suggesting the creation of a project logo to
help identify the project and that it is very beneficial since it is a project for which promotion and
dissemination is important.
It was discussed that the website has to be customized for the project. Mr Mangion said that the
site should ideally have 2 sections;


A general open section for the dissemination of the project
A partner’s section which should be accessible via username and password.
He added that the website should be attractive to the public as well as modern so as to attract
younger people to visit this website. He stated that a login and a password would be required
where one would have the login part for the participants in the project and the open website for
the public and as a form of dissemination of information and promotion. A discussion regarding
the logo ensued and Mr. Agius stated that something similar to Mr. Szovics’ last slide of the
presentation would be very interesting because it shows youth and old age very nicely and could
be an idea for the logo. The other partners however argued that the logo should be kept simple
and that it must include the Project Acronym ILPO55 and a reference to an intergenerational
link. Following this discussion it was decided that all partners should come up with proposals
about the logo and these should be forwarded to MCAST by November week 1.
It was decided that:
7|Page
-
Each entity will come up with a proposal; share it with all the participants to have
different versions of the logo to than choose one.
Establish a deadline and who will deliver
The co-coordinator of this task is UNINETTUNO
Ms. Marika Huber than commented that for dissemination purposes and in relation to the
website, it would be beneficial to write a press release so as to inform the public about the
project and its expectations.. Therefore it was suggested to circulate a press release about the
website and each participant should include it as an article in their entity’s respective website. It
was decided that on the website the article will be in English since mostly all websites are in
English due to the need to make this websites international.
Ms Cotovanu said that MBN should lead when it comes to dissemination strategies. She
stated that a strategic plan should be drafted and agreed on by the partners and that MBN should
suggest the dissemination objectives, the way forward to reach this goal.
Mr. Di Mele then asked a question as clarification with regards to the website, he asked if the
website was to be a tool for the project or as a showcase. The answer given was both purposes.
The website should not only be public, but should have a part which is accessible by the
participants, where minutes, agendas etc can be uploaded. Also the private part of the website
could be a forum for discussion.
Ms. Bajada than suggested that a potential forum could be created for the public to share their
experiences, such as testimonials, the positive and negative. Mr. Di Mele then asked regarding
the language to be used for the testimonials and it was agreed that the language should be
English. This suggestion opened up a discussion about the do’s and dont’s of having a forum
with testimonials.
It was decided that:
-
The time frame for the logo is 2 weeks from date – 7th November
Mid-November UNINETTUNO will produce the basic structure/skeleton of the website.
End of November would be the date to launch the website
MBN will write a press release about the kick-off meeting as a means of dissemination.
Each respective participant in the project will place this on their entity’s website. This
should be done by Tuesday 28th October
Dr. Szovics suggested to use Google Analytics in the Website to see the number of hits and
clicks and thus to help as an indicator by the end of the project.
Mr. Di Mele then suggested that it is good to have a Facebook page and link it to the website.
Both suggestions were accepted by the rest of the members.
8|Page
Ms. Jessica Giordmaina then stated that MCAST should be the contact point with EUPA as the
national agency. She stated that EUPA will place any press releases on their website. She
stressed that it is very important to include the Erasmus + logo as well as the declaration by the
commission on any dissemination related to the project.
Ms. Huber then asked regarding a date for the dissemination strategy in relation to the website
and it was agreed by all that this should be the end of November together with the launch of the
website.
Conclusions from Output 2

All participants are to propose a logo which should:
- Include Project Acronym
- Be simple
- Underline the intergenerational element and highlight the link between people of
different ages
- be submitted to MCAST by the 7th November 2014

UNINETTUNO is responsible to create the project website which should include:
- Google analytics
- Have a testimonial section
- Be linked to a Facebook page
- Have a private section for partners which includes the important programme
documentation as well as have a section for the Public as a showcase and as a
means of dissemination
- include a calendar with deadlines and important dates for partners (MCAST will
explore some possibilities about this)

MBN is responsible to write and submit a press release regarding the Kick-Off of
ILPO55

MBN will be responsible to prepare a Dissemination Strategy

MBN is responsible to write and submit a press release regarding the Website
4.3 Discussions related to Output 3 (Needs and Gaps Analysis)
It was decided that a Skype meeting should be organized with ANUP since the representative of
this entity could not be present. It was decided that the input from this meeting will be circulated
This is important due to the Interim Partner Meeting in Romania in month 11
9|Page
The next up was Mr. Dondi from SCIENTER. This entity has the most sizeable output in the 1st
year since they have to create the Framework. Mr. Dondi created a workshop which involved all
participants. He stated that one has to reflect on the diversity of the population to motivate them.
He also stated that for this output it is very important to get feedback. Mr. Dondi presented the
following questions for the participants to think about.
-
How is the problem defined?
Who are the stakeholders to be heard?
What are the key questions to ask?
How will we address them?
How will we rank needs and gaps?
Mr. Dondi than guided the participants, by taking them through a journey that will enable them
to answer the questions. He stated that first one has to gain the knowledge and theory to be able
to answer those questions. He stated that the theory cannot be fixed, one had to adapt, however
the starting point is from theory to them move to practice.
Mr. Dondi stated that the motto to keep in mind for this project is: No Senior is Left Behind. He
continued by saying that one has to find good practice which is theoretically grounded. He stated
that there are 4 dimensions, and the first thing to do is identify what makes the dimension and
what makes these people different and how difference in individuals can dramatically change the
approach to be taken, therefore one needs to find a way to target everyone, hence the motto for
this project. He continued by saying that first before starting one must define the problem.
Mr. Dondi stated that this project has to be a win/win/win situation, win for the 55+, for the
youngsters and for the company. He stated that the key for this project is feedback, since
feedback would give a good idea about how the project will shape up. He said that a
methodology and instruments have to be developed, such as surveys, questionnaires, followed
by reports. He continued by saying that one has to decide a timeframe on some form of draft for
the tool.
Conclusions for Output 3


To fill-in and send the Country Report to SCIENTER by End of January
To send a template to the partners regarding the state of the art of each country and the
stakeholders of each country
Output 4 was skipped as this already tackled in Dr. Szovics’ presentation.
4.4 Discussions in relation to Output 5 (Course Curricula for ILPO55 Qualifications)
Mr. Mangion introduced the output by stating that it was important to decide how this course
will be accredited. He also explained that considering that MCAST would be responsible for the
10 | P a g e
design of course curricula and assessment standard than the Maltese accreditation system can be
adopted. It was further stated that without a specific MQF/EQF level accreditation cannot be
achieved. It was stated that work can start from September 2015 towards the end of the project.
MCAST will also be collaborating with IFS for this particular activity. Mr. Clemens
Spoorenberg mentioned the notion of credits. Mr. Mangion said that in Malta we have certain
standards to achieve accreditation in line with the provisions of the licensing and accreditation
legal notice 296 of 2012. It is very important to determine at what level the qualifications will be
pegged. Mr. Mangion said that to give an idea, an MQF/EQF level 4 is a technician/supervisory
level. The participants agreed that the qualifications should not be pegged at a low level since we
are talking about an adult trainer level. However, it is very important that first one defines the
learning outcomes. Also one must also define the competencies required and then look at the
level. One of the participants questioned if there are similar qualifications where one can get an
idea from. It was commented that Mr. Dondi can help with this, to see good practices of these
types of qualifications. However, a needs analysis must be conducted to have more input about
this.
The next query set forward was the blended learning aspect; Mr. Mangion asked if there were
any ideas or comments in relation to this, maybe shed some light on what was the main idea in
mind when the application was written. EFFEBI stated that this is related to a project they have
just finished. Ms Cotovanu than mentioned the Branching Stories, which were used to develop
specific skills. Branching stories are games built on different choices one can make, in order to
obtain a specific outcome. Different choices will generate different outcomes. These games are
used in education training, and for the particular project by EFFEBI it was used as part of a
blended learning approach. Mr. Mangion stated that this is in line with MCAST plans in relation
to its new curriculum.
Conclusion for Output 5

It was decided that further discussions are required and a direction must be identified in
relation to the courses to be developed.
4.5 Discussion in relation to Output 6 –ILPO55 Reference Framework
In this output there was a slight problem in the Application since the ownership of activity 2 was
not clear. Therefore at this stage it was very important to identify the owner of this task. After a
discussion and a review of the budgets allocated to the different entities related to this task it was
established that IFS Malta will take ownership of this task since the budget is indicative due to
the fact they have a larger budget. Therefore, the ownership will remain as per application.
Discussions regarding this output ensued with regards to the framework in general and the
definition of specific principals and methodology which were referred to by Mr. Dondi in his
presentation of Output 3. The participants continued by stating that for the reference framework
one must find the key approaches that could be used. Recommendations could be used to provide
11 | P a g e
the methodology and tools, which would be valid for the exploitation of the project and give one
the opportunity to look at things before the piloting is done, same as was done in EQAVET
where the employers were sent for to determine the situation before the pilot.
Conclusion for Output 6

Output 6 Activity 2 will be managed by IFS Malta
4.6 Discussions in relation to Output 7:2nd Interim Evaluation Report
Discussions were held on the possible removal of this output and the re-numeration of the
remaining outputs. A 2nd Interim report is only required in 70% of the money is not spent.
Conclusion for Output 7


Discuss with EUPA about the elimination of Output 7 from the Intellectual Outputs and
re-numerating the outputs. This is since there is no need for a 2nd Interim report.
Action required - to send a request to the National Agency to Eliminate Output 7 and renumerate the others.
4.7 Discussion in relation to Output 8:
Similarly to Output 6 Activity 2, Output 8 Activity 3 the ownership also needed to be discussed.
Partners followed the same process as for the previous case and it was decided that MCAST and
ANUP and not IFS will be the owners of this activity. Conclusion for Output 8:

Output 8 Activity 2 will be managed by MCAST and ANUP and not by IFS Malta
4.9 Discussion in relation to Output 9:
The creation of an e-book was discussed. The discussion evolved around whether to give just a
pdf format or else a CD. It was decided to base the decision on the resources at hand on the date
of the production however it was agreed to have something ICT based, and not a hard copy.
Partners agreed to decide according to the material produced, since there are a lot of possibilities
one can take.
Conclusion for Output 9

Left open and decision will be taken when the material is produced and according to
resources.
4.10 Discussion in relation to Output 10:
Partners briefly discussed the drafting of an Intellectual Property Rights Agreement.
12 | P a g e
It was discussed that the final results are owned by the participants in the same way. A query was
put forward with regards to the rights to use the material in country which is not a partner in this
project. Would one have to pay, inform etc if the material produced is to be used by any other
country? This was left for future discussion since it is towards the end of the project.
4.11 Discussion in relation to Output 11:
A discussion about the Final Conference which is to be held in Malta in June 2016 ensued. Mr.
Spatafora stated that the preparations for this conference needed to be initiated at least 1 year
before. There were various comments about the fact that in Malta at that time it would be
extremely hot and the possibility of relocating the conference to a cooler country (from the ones
participating in the project) was discussed. No specific decisions were made at this stage.
Conclusions of Day 1
The day was brought to a close. It was agreed that it was a good start. It was agreed that all the
presentations given today will be shared amongst participants and those who had the presentation
on their pen drive to send them to MCAST.
Mr. Spatafora then asked the team to decide on a date for the meeting in Rome. Date agreed on
was the 23rd and 24th of February.

Decision taken: Next Transnational Partner's Meeting 23rd and 24th February 2015
- In Rome
13 | P a g e