BOSS – steering committee – A0.2c Milan

27th and 28th September 2018

On the 27th September and 28th September 2018 the third BOSS project meeting was held Milan in Region Lombardia in Italy. The following people and organisations were present at this meeting:

Barbara Chiappa (RL)

Donatella Bosio (RL)

Leonardo La Rocca (RL)

Francois Beauchard (CREPS)

Antoine Le Bellec (CREPS)

Maxine Gregory (SHU)

Andreas Thomann (TUM)

Barbara Eigenschenk (TUM)

Lionel Vialon (UCPA)

Cecilia Go Detour (FITE)

Petar Iankov (NSA)

Arne Strate (EOG)

John News (SNI)

Mike Mc Clure (SNI) (via Skype on 27th only )

Garish Ramchandani (SHU) (via Skype on 27th only )


Apologies were received from:

Eduard Ingles Yuba (INEFC)

Joao Zamith (SCV)



François Beauchard and Antoine Le Bellec welcomed everyone to the Erasmus+ BOSS Steering Group meeting. François Beauchard thanks Regio Lonbardia for hosting the meeting. Donatella Bosio welcomed the meeting to Milan and noted that Regio Lombardio was delighted to participate in the Erasmus+ funded BOSS partnership project.







Work Package 0
















It was noted that the initial timeline must be respected and the project is currently in the WP2 phase. It should be noted that WP2 will continue in parallel with WP3. This is due to an evolution in the model development process (which requires primary research).


  • Staff changes

A number of staff changes have taken place over the past year within partner organisations. It is a requirement that for each change, the CREPS must have an official letter from the institution that indicates the change (with the names and dates of the replacement).


  • 2017 financial report

The 2017 financial report had been sent to Steering Group members on 7th September 2018. The main aspects of this were presented during the meeting.

Partners were reminded that:

  • The report provided is provisional and there is a need for some adjustments (daily cost, invoices etc.)
  • 2017 was the first time that the BOSS project has completed EU financial reporting and there is a need to understand European Commission rules better.
  • Need to continue to improve financial reporting process
  • Effective financial management of the BOSS project is taking more time (for CREPS) than was originally anticipated/planned – this is impacting on CREPS costs
  • Based on the learning from 2017, financial reporting in 2018 and 2019 should be easier for all!

It was noted that it had previously been agreed to use money saved in A02a to involve more partners in A1.1.

It was also noted that all the days allocated to A1.4 had not been used in 2017. Some days were used early in 2018. Agreed that surplus (unallocated) A1.4 funds in 2017 would be re-allocated to 2018 budget.

It was further agreed that available savings would be used to support WP2 & 3 and support the CREPS for the costs for the management of the project.


  • Subcontracting costs:

The CREPS must have all the documents relating to subcontracting. For 2017, this concerns the website and external experts.

The partners must send the document in accordance with the recommendations in the “management guide”


  • Indirect costs:

It was agreed to calculate and pay the indirect costs at the end of the project. Pre-payments are only based on direct costs.

Partners were reminded of the need to retain evidence of time (days/hours) spent on the BOSS Project – this could include time marked in a diary (MS Outlook or similar or scanned copy of a paper diary entry.


  • 2018 financial report

All partners will be sent the necessary documents for the 2018 financial report. It was reminded that:

  • Timesheets – need to be signed every month
  • Daily rate – need to have a new document signed for 2018
  • Days – the correct number of days according to the application must be respected (all changes need to be validated and a written report provided to the CREPS)
  • Excel document: please complete it clearly / each amount must be justified by an invoice
  • Invoices must be readable it is important to keep the originals – and it is suggested that partners scan paper invoices to minimise the risk of ink fade making them unreadable (and therefore ineligible) at a later date for audit by European Commission.


  • A0.8: Develop and manage an overall evaluation plan for the project

While each work package leaders will undertake an evaluation for that element, there is a need to complete an overall evaluation for the project. The project manager will manage this process to ensure that there is a mechanism to capture data from partners, participants and external experts through the development of on-line surveys, questionnaires and interviews as required.

This evaluation will generate information on good practice, learning and provide key recommendations that can be taken forward for further studies or similar projects. Project group: CREPS, INEFC and FITE

There was a discussion on this evaluation plan. It was agreed that Antoine Le Bellec will contact EACEA and other project leaders to understand if this assessment should be on the project or process (or both). Is it only at the end or during the project? The project group will meet early in 2019.


  • Risk management plan

The risk management plan was reviewed, updated and verified as accurate by the Steering Group. The revised document reflects ‘Lessons Learned’ from WP0 and WP1


Work Package 1

TUM staff presented the work done in work package 1.

Three key aspects were noted:

– An important set of data has been collated.

– The results are very interesting.

– The infographics produced are a good support to communicate these results.


Some difficulties were identified, including the very academic process which certainly limited the results in some countries. TUM noted that delivery of WP1 had been more complex than originally anticipated given the challenges of working across multiple languages and jurisdictions – this was reflected in the time spent on the research phase. The Steering Group recognised that an objective of the BOSS project was to learn how to work collectively. This is an important goal of European projects!

Andreas asked each partner to check their respective national field study review and add any necessary explanations, new studies, good practices even if it’s not academic. Potential examples noted in this respect included Italy/refugees, Bulgaria/definitions- language associated with outdoor recreation

It was agreed that EOG and TUM will see together how to include the studies on the BOSS website. Issues to be considered in this regard include ‘grading’ of research studies, filter criteria, who was the website’s target audience (academics, industry, groups, interested individuals/public).

In light of the challenges identified in WP1, the Steering Group noted the need to give careful consideration to the selection of case studies that are reflective of the delivery partners’ experiences and their capacity to gather robust evaluation data. It was agreed that case studies (WP3) should consider the need to include: coached/led activities v. self-directed participation, casual (solo) v organised (group).


The final report will be send before the end of 2018.

An evaluation survey will then be sent to partners regarding the work done in WP1.


Work Package 4

Roll out of the detailed dissemination plan

All partners to provide numbers for the dissemination of information. Still to be done for SHU, SCV, UCPA, FITE.


Dissemination plan

The group worked on the document developed by Sport NI. It was noted that Region Lombardia had submitted information but it had not saved to the Dropbox folder so this is to be added in.


A4.2 Website

Need some improvements:

    • Content layout to be optimised
    • Review content for dead links and either include information or remove link
    • Photo sizes to be standardised
    • Check the text display (in the boxes)
    • Add the partners information (logo etc – explore potential for this to be a mouse rollover function linking staff to relevant institution
    • Correct meet the team (pictures and staff change)
    • Add legal information and include GDPR statement
    • Add ‘Contact us’ with the contact information of Antoine le Bellec (project manager)
    • Check is all is OK with the European legal rules


A.4.5 Min 12 Electronic updates (e-zines) – (20 planned)

  • Report on WP 2.2 (meeting April) to develop the most appropriate model = final version to be checked by SHU – to be provided in October
  • Report on WP 2.7 (meeting September) to Create a system for testing and evaluating the model – to be provided in October
  • Report on the Steering Group meeting 3 – detailed report (internal use) will be provided in October / report for website will provided in November


A4.7 presentations at conferences (Min 13 pan-European)

The table for engagement at conferences was updated during the meeting.

Each partner must complete the table with his interventions. It was proposed to keep all the information relating to the interventions (images, press information, web link …)

It was noted that so far CREPS, TUM and SNI have provided conference interventions. It will be necessary to be vigilant to respect a balance between the partners that workloads are shared equitably. Otherwise it will be necessary to review costs allocated to those partners who intervene more. It was also noted that there was potential to allocate more budget to support dissemination of the project through case study delivery phase (Spring/Summer 2019). A final decision in this regard will only be taken at the end of the project, having identified any additional easements/pressures in WP0, WP2 and WP3.


A4.8 Articles for magazines and journals

Arne Strate has proposed to done some publications in the outdoor sport industry sector.

The group discussed that it would be helpful to develop additional simple infographics to capture the range of financial, social and health (mental & physical) benefits of outdoor recreation.


Intellectual property

Information of the rules for our project are in the article II.8 of the grant agreement.


Work Package 2

 Developing a mechanism for measuring social value in outdoor sport

  • A2.1: Defining the scope of the work package
  • A2.2 Develop the most appropriate model
  • A2.3 Identify key stakeholders
  • A2.4 Develop theory of change model for each outcome to show how change is created
  • A2.5 Decide on the outcomes that must be measured and valued
  • A2.6 Calculate impact and value
  • A2.7 Create a system for testing and evaluating the model


Maxine Gregory from SHU reminded the team of the work undertaken since January…

The selected option of a ‘process model’ is necessary because of the limited amount of robust quantified evidence from WP1.

We need to collect more data and test via WP3

The model will try to provide something that is practical, as well as theoretically robust. It will make the process as transparent as possible (limiting the amount of complex calculations).

There was a lot of discussion and explanation to understand the methodology that will be used.


Garish Ramchandani presented a draft of spreadsheet with the kind of questions that will have to be asked for the case studies. Following this there was a discussion on the type of case studies that should be sought. It was agreed that SHU will provide the specifications for case studies and each partner will have to provide comments.

It was noted that it was important to have adequate resources to support the case study leaders, because there are realistically insufficient days in the application. It was agreed that case study allocation should be shared equally among all project partners, as far as possible, to ensure that the burden does not fall unfairly on 2-3 partners. This will also have the additional benefit of ensuring a wide selection of case studies from across each country/jurisdiction.

To limit the work it was agreed that 10 partners will have to support a case study and 1 will have to support 2.

In addition, due to the change of model, the work done for WP2 is not completed. So, there are days available for SHU to support the rest of the process. Work Package 2 continues in parallel with the beginning of WP3.

After the 2018 financial evaluation we will see if we can move some money to support the realisation of WP3. Arne mentioned that EOG will be happy to support the development of infographics in this regard; there may also be potential for some support in that regard through the WP4 contract.



  • There was some discussion on the potential to increase the budget available for translation costs into six languages (English, Italian, Bulgarian, French, Portuguese, German) to ensure that the questionnaire will be used effectively in each country.
  • The origin of the data should be mentioned.
  • The work must produce a tool kit.
  • The partners and the case studies leaders need to know exactly the work to be done in the WP3 (importance of the specifications)
  • EOG proposed to create diagrams and graphics in order to be shared and to be on the website.
  • There was a discussion on the extent to which each of the participating countries have a culture/understanding of the concept of ‘social return on investment’ (SROI). It was noted that not all countries have the same culture as UK and additional support may be required to help those case study (leaders) engage with and understand the concept.
  • Agreed that there should be an ‘interface’ meeting between WP2 & WP3 leaders as soon as possible


Timeline for WP2 and WP3

A timeline has been approved:

Date Task Who
Sept 2018 Steering Committee – Milan All partners
5th October 2018 Draft of “case study specifications” send by SHU to all the partners SHU
5 – 12th October 2018 Remarks and adjustments from all the partners

Need to be clear to all

(skype meeting if necessary)

All partners with SHU
12th October 2018 Dead line to share a first proposition list of potential case studies (if you know already some case studies that you want propose)

Need a short presentation, key facts, target, benefits… a document to gather information will be provide (form online?).

All partners

Check by: SHU-NSA – UCPA

12th October – 16th November 2018 Each partner contact case studies leaders with the help of “case study specifications” All partner


16th November 2018 Dead line for sending 5 case studies by partner

(with all the information required, and sorted by preference order)

Form on line?

All partner
26 & 27th November 2018 Meeting A3.2 “selection of case studies”


1st week of December Sharing the selected case studies All