Process Evaluation Summary – Day 1


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.

P/S Love your lack of angst.

Overall comments: a case study of having integrated gender into an ICT project at planning, monitoring, evaluation will have been useful. MSC was great. Merging OM and indicators remains a concern.

%d bloggers like this: