Evaluation & Communication in Practice

1. The PRE-WORKSHOP PREPARATIONS

1 Were not adequate

14 Were adequate

* Should be repeated

• The materials could have been made available online.
• The interviews for partners uploaded in the web were really useful.
• Appreciated being asked.
• Just sufficient information to prepare me mentally for the workshop.
• Good website links.
• Apologies for not coming prepared with my poster.
• The preparations I think were adequate and should be repeated in future workshops.
• I found the web space useful especially for preparing for the workshop.

2. The DISTRIBUTION OF TIME during Day 1

1 Was not adequate

12 Was adequate

2 Should be repeated

• Good balance.
• Sorry!! but we are finishing early. We need not have rushed so much.
• Good balance breaks.
• I think we were all jet-lagged.
• But maybe more time needed for presentations of methodologies.

3. The time and method (posters) for PARTICIPANT INTRODUCTIONS

3 Was not adequate

9 Was adequate

1 Should be repeated

• This is a very good way of knowing each other without spending much time
• Posters are interesting but a quick oral presentation (not ppt) of the main ideas and objectives of each project could have been more informative.
• Perhaps providing a bio of each participant in the package.
• More time to get to know projects.
• Not sure, I missed the introduction.

• Should have more time viewing posters and interacting with other participants. But I think it should be done again in future workshops.
• Some participants / projects were absent or less…

4. The time and method for the EVALUATION PRESENTATIONS

3 Was not adequate

9 Was adequate

1 Should be repeated

• All presentations were adequate and presentations were informative.
• Good balance.
• I believe these should have been 3 – ½ day sessions. Really would have appreciated more exposure to the speakers.
• You do need at least 3 days do deal with this workshop I feel. I know the constraints but yet workshop designs should not be compromised.
• I liked the buzz groups.
• There should be less emphasis on presentations and more on discussion.
• No presentations after lunch please.
• I think the presenters did a good job in keeping time. But it would be better if they are given longer time for more practical exercises.
• Was adequate only because we all have some knowledge of the different methodologies.
• Would appreciate a few more case studies on how methods have been used (can probably go back & read) AND short falls or challenges that were faced by users. The described shortfall was more on weaknesses / limitations of each methodology (OM & MSC).

5. The BUZZ GROUP exercises

* Were not adequate

10 Were adequate

4 Should be repeated

• This worked very well.
• Would have appreciated more time to review and dialogue on these elements. Shared learnings.
• Effective way of sharing learning.
• Useful to work in a team.
• It would be useful to ask each group to share 1 point for greater peer learning.
• Buzz groups are really good especially when you get to discuss with the IDRC partner. You both agree on…
• A good way for people quickly summarize their understanding.
• More discussion with presenters on questions / comments needed.