How to Write the Erasmus+ Work Plan

The work plan is the operational heart of your Erasmus+ proposal. It is where evaluators check whether your project is genuinely feasible — whether the activities are realistic, the timeline is logical, and each partner has a clear, meaningful role. A strong work plan does not just describe what you will do; it shows that you have thought through how, when, and who.

This guide explains how to build the work plan for KA1, KA210 and KA220 applications — including the work package structure required for KA220, the key consistency checks evaluators perform, and a ready-to-use example you can adapt directly.

1. Work Plan Structure by Key Action

The format and complexity of the work plan differs significantly between Key Actions. Before writing, make sure you are using the right structure for your application type.

2. How to Build Work Packages (KA220)

For KA220 applications, the work plan is organised into work packages. You need to provide at least one work package in addition to Work Package 1 (Project Management), and it is recommended to have a maximum of 5 work packages including Project Management.

The standard KA220 work package structure

• WP1 — Project Management — always first; covers coordination, communication, financial management, quality assurance and reporting. Lead: coordinating organisation.
• WP2 — Research / Needs Analysis — initial phase; gathering evidence, mapping existing practice, producing a baseline report. Often involves all partners.
• WP3 — Development — the core intellectual output(s): training programme, toolkit, methodology, platform. This is where the main deliverables are produced.
• WP4 — Pilot / Testing — testing outputs with real participants, gathering feedback, revising based on results. Includes transnational learning activities if applicable.
• WP5 — Dissemination and Sustainability — multiplier events, open-access publication, policy outreach, sustainability planning. Always the final work package.

3. How to Write Individual Activities

Each activity inside a work package needs three things: a clear description of what will happen, a named responsible partner, and a specific timeline. Evaluators cannot give full points to an activity that is vague on any of these three elements.

For each activity, write:

• What: A specific description of the task — not “develop training materials” but “develop a 6-module blended learning curriculum on digital facilitation, including facilitator guide and participant workbook”
• Who: Named responsible partner and contributing partners — “Lead: Partner A (Greece); Contributing: Partners B and C”
• When: Start and end month — “Months 4–10”
• Output: What the activity produces — “Validated 6-module curriculum (open access, 3 languages)”

4. Example Work Plan Table

Below is a condensed example work plan for a 24-month KA220 project on digital competence for youth workers. Adapt the structure, content, partners and timeline to your own project.

5. The Consistency Checks Evaluators Run

Evaluators do not just read the work plan in isolation — they cross-check it against every other section of the proposal. These are the four checks they always run:

Work plan vs objectives. Every objective must be addressed by at least one activity. If an objective has no corresponding activity, evaluators will flag it as unachievable and deduct points on Quality of Design.

Work plan vs budget. Every activity that costs money must appear in the budget. If your WP3 includes translation into 3 languages but there is no translation budget line, this is a red flag. Run this check line by line before submitting.

Work plan vs partner roles. Every partner must have a meaningful role in at least two work packages. A partner that appears only in WP1 meetings is not contributing added value — evaluators will score the partnership quality lower as a result.

Work plan vs timeline. The timeline must be realistic. Producing a 6-module curriculum in 2 months is not credible. Allow adequate time for each phase — research, development, piloting and dissemination each need breathing room, including buffer time for partner coordination delays.

6. Most Common Work Plan Mistakes

All activities in the last 6 months. Back-loading your timeline — stacking most deliverables near the end — is a red flag. It signals poor planning and gives evaluators reason to doubt your project is feasible. Spread activities logically across the full project duration.

Coordinator leads every work package. If Partner A leads WP1 through WP5, the work plan does not demonstrate genuine consortium collaboration. Distribute leadership and show that each partner brings something specific to the project.

Activities without outputs. Every activity should produce something — a document, a report, a training session, a published resource. If you cannot name what an activity produces, it either does not belong in the work plan or it needs to be merged with another activity.

Dissemination as the very last activity. Dissemination should begin at least 6 months before the project ends — not in the final month. Starting dissemination early allows results to reach audiences while the project is still active and demonstrates a genuine commitment to impact beyond the consortium.

No evaluation activities planned. Quality assurance and internal evaluation are expected in every Erasmus+ project. If your work plan has no evaluation activity — no milestone reviews, no participant feedback collection, no self-assessment — it signals that you have not thought about how to ensure quality during implementation.