Примери за използване на Audited incubators на Английски и техните преводи на Български
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
However, the performance of audited incubators was modest.
Observations 12 18 This section begins with an assessment of the performance of the audited incubators.
Further- more, almost all audited incubators had links with a recognised local part- ner, or were embedded within one.
The size of the incubators is one of many factors ensuring comparability between the effectiveness of the ERDF audited incubators in relation to the benchmarked population.
Only 6 out of 27 audited incubators were subject to quality audits which aimed to improve the overall quality of incubation services.
The value of virtual incu- bation is demonstrated by the fact that the number of start- ups created by the audited incubators greatly exceeds the number of tenants in the incubators. .
Most audited incubators did not offer sup- port to prospective entrepreneurs at the pre- incubation stage, or to non- resident clients.
The guide was published too late to allow the audited incubators to take it into consideration at the time of their establishment.
Observations 20 Comparison of main available staff skills and expertise The range of skills and expertise possessed by incubator staff was less extensive in the audited incubators.
Annex 34 List of audited incubators Name of the incubator Visited Surveyed Czech Republic Agentura pro ekonomický rozvoj Vsetínska, o.p.s.
The disappointing results delivered by the audited incubators can be explained by the fact that estab- lished good practices had only been applied to a limited extent.
Contents 03 73- 78 Limitations in the dissemination of knowledge by the European Commission hampered the promotion of good practices 79- 85 Conclusions andrecommendations Annex- List of audited incubators Reply of the Commission.
In order to minimise their structural deficit, audited incubators whose con- tinued financing was not guaranteed were forced to reduce their costs and maximise their income.
Weak incubation programmes(see paragraphs 38 and 39) andlimitations in the range of services offered were two main reasons for the fact that only 11 out of 27 audited incubators pro- vided virtual incubation to externally located clients.
Only 4 out of 27 audited incubators systematically drew up a comprehensive incubation programme together with each indi- vidual client, establishing specific per- formance and development objectives.
Due to insufficient financing and a lack of external funding(e.g. from a share- holder),8 out of 27 audited incubators had to limit the scope of the incuba- tion support which they offered after their ERDF grant agreement expired.
As a result, audited incubators de- pended heavily on income generated internally from incubation activities(mainly office space rental), which ac- counted for 72% of their total revenue.
ERDF management systems did not focus on the efficiency of the services provided by business incubators 59 These audit results,including the sup- porting benchmarking data, clearly indicate that audited incubators did not provide their services efficiently enough.
Good practice- Integrated monitoring system One of the most successful audited incubators in the Czech Republic regularly monitored the performance of hosted companies and the relevance and quality of the support offered to them.
In general, audited ERDF co-financed incubator facilities had been established properly, butthe business support offered to clients was only moderately successful 80 The performance of the audited incubators was lower than that of the benchmarked incubators. .
The Commission notes that the classification of the performance of the audited incubators as modest is based upon the comparison of the results of these more recently established incubators with the benchmarks set by well-established, more mature incubators. .
Recognising this, the Court examined the quality andrelevance of the prac- tices and procedures of the audited incubators in four areas:(a) their internal business planning;(b) the relevance of the services pro- vided to their clients;(c) the systems they used for monitor- ing clients;(d) and their business models.
Conclusions and recommendations 80 The Commission notes that the classification of the performance of the audited incubators as mod- est is based upon the comparison of the results of these more recently established incubators with the benchmarks set by well- established, more mature incubators. .
During the reference period, the aver- age audited incubator helped to draw up 20 new business plans.
On average, 164 people were employed in each audited incubator over the reference period; however, start- ups accounted for only a small proportion of these.
Average outcomes achieved by business incubators Audited ERDF incubators were comparatively less effective.
Efficiency of incubators' operations- results for 2011 Audited business incubators were comparatively less efficient.
In the audited population of 27 incubators, only 7 had made sure that the finan- cial support provided by stakeholders would be continuously available.
In our special report on this subject,we found that weak selection criteria and a lack of development goals for hosted companies had a negative impact on the effectiveness of the incubators audited, and adversely affected the overall efficiency of their incubation activities.