This appendix provides with the guidelines and the rationale followed for the tailoring of the PM² Methodology into the EUPM² Guide, as well as with an outline of the modifications introduced in the pillars of the Methodology.
EU-funded projects share characteristics that require adaptation of the standard PM² Methodology. The main one is the funding mechanism, very frequently based on grants resulting from Calls for Proposals. Grant projects are responsive to Calls for Proposals, where overall policy objectives and requirements are indicated within the framework of a specific EU programme, and the applicants need to submit their proposals. They are then evaluated and, if found suitable, a Grant Agreement is signed to allocate the necessary financial support to undertake the project. The following table1 provides an overview of the main differences in projects that originate from grants and from public procurement procedures:
| | Public Procurement | Grants | | --- | --- | --- | | Project Purpose | Procurement of services (purchase oriented) | Policy implementation relying on partners (partnership oriented) | | Project Design | Closed – responds to specific and descriptive Terms of Reference | Open – responds to the orientations provided in the Guidelines for Calls for Proposals | | Project Ownership | The project results are owned by the EU | The project results are owned by the implementing partner | | Economic benefit | Economic benefit is allowed | Economic benefit is generally not allowed | | Project Funding | Projects are funded 100% | Projects generally require co-financing by the grant beneficiary |
Tailoring is strongly embedded in the PM² Methodology. It refers to changing specific parts of the methodology, such as process steps, the content of artefacts, the distribution of responsibilities amongst the various roles, etc. It is possible to adapt and align the methodology to the specific needs and procedures of EU-funded projects. In addition to any tailoring, further customisation may also be required at the project level to reflect the project’s specific management needs. Examples of such customisations are the definition of decision thresholds for escalation, risk tolerances based on the risk appetite of the stakeholders, etc. Tailoring requires a solid understanding of the PM²Methodology to avoid over-simplifications or modifications that would deviate from the spirit of the Methodology. The following guidelines have been considered:
The PM² Lifecycle is tailored to fit the grant mechanism regarding the following key elements, that are reflected in the PM² for EU Funds Lifecycle: The publication of the Call for Proposals is previous to the lifecycle, but it has a strong effect on it as it sets the deadline for submission of proposals, the estimated dates for a financing decision, and the estimated dates for the signature of the Grant Agreement, as well as the overall project timeframe. Also, the Call for Proposals documents will include the details and procedures for proposal submission and the Grant Agreement elements that will need to be considered. The Planning Phase needs to consider the elapsed time between the submission of the proposal and the notification (in its case) of the grant award (financing decision), and also the requirements of the Call for Proposals in terms of planning detail. The level of planning detail required for the submission of a Full Application for a Call for Proposals answers to the need of the Contracting Authority to gather information necessary to assess all the submitted proposals in equal terms. This level of detail may be defined in a Design Stage within the Planning Phase. If the proposal is awarded the grant, it will be necessary to update, detail, and complete the Planning Phase during the Preparing Stage, in order to prepare for the effective execution of the project.
The PM² Governance model is tailored to fit the grant mechanism regarding the following key elements, that are reflected in the EUPM² Guide Governance model: As it is observed in the table above, the purpose, design, and ownership of the project is defined by the grant applicants, based on the defined objectives and priorities fixed in the Call for Proposals by the Contracting Authority that launches and manages the Call for Proposals. This affects the definition of the roles and responsibilities in the project, moving from a client-service provider relationship to a partnership relationship. The partnership is not only formed among consortium members, but also with the Contracting Authority, that is seeking for proposals aligned with EU policy objectives. Several partners work together and in a coordinated manner to achieve project success. In this sense, the sides of the model continue to exist, but respond to differences in ultimate responsibility regarding project deliverables and results. The Grant Requestor side focuses on the project achieving results and benefits, while the Provider Side focuses on the generation of the project deliverables.
The layers continue to respond to an axis that varies from strategic to operational involvement in the project, but at the top, the role of the Contracting Authority (CA) is placed to provide strategic guidance and ultimate approval of the project by signing the Grant Agreement and mobilising the necessary resources. The end beneficiaries are considered external and denominated Project Target Group (PTG). (and as such a different colour is used) and the project will have to make the necessary arrangement to ensure their participation or management as stakeholders.
Appendix B: Practices and standards in Project Design and Management
Appendix D: Partnerships and Stakeholders in EU-funded projects