The objective of the centre is to enhance interprofessional collaboration between educational provision addressing children and young people’s wellbeing, health and education. A key feature of the proposed centre is the co-design and co-production of learning resources by students, staff and practitioners.
Strengths and weaknesses
One of the biggest strengths in this proposal is the strong engagement from students, teaching staff and stakeholders. The students act as change-agents and proved to be a driving force for the idea of this centre. All the mentioned parties were able to clearly conceptualize and persuade the panel of the aims and the need for the proposed centre. The panel was impressed by the huge buy-in to this centre.
The objectives of this centre are aligned with public policies for this field. This strengthened the picture of external support, possibilities of dissemination and impact.
During the site visit, the panel became aware of what seemed like hindrances in the institutional administrative structure. Teaching staff were concerned with their workload and hindrances in solving this. There was also some evidence of silo thinking, which was concerning. The proposed centre was viewed as a possible solution to these challenges. The institutional management did not have the same concerns and did not show an understanding of this.
The management structure of the centre is unclear and undecided. This is an important part of the centre’s likelihood of success. There were few ideas of how this would be organized and the management of the institution and the proposed centre leader did not seem to understand the importance of a good management structure. Key personnel were not decided upon and the management were not able to reassure the panel of potential candidates, although teaching staff seemed eager to take on the tasks.
The expert panel acknowledged that work strand leaders was not yet determined, however it should still have been possible for the proposed centre leader and the institutional management to convince the panel of how the proposed centre would be evaluated. Unfortunately, they did not do so. Little understanding was shown of how “the theory of change”, which was referred to in the bid, would be applied. Considerable work is needed to develop a clear plan in regards to evaluation and impact.
In conclusion, the expert panel felt that the proposal for this centre initially had a good vision, but there were too many shortcomings. Even though the buy-in to this centre is impressive, the panel is not convinced that the centre has the potential to succeed because of challenges with the structures of the centres and the institution.