Overall Workshop Evaluation

1. What I liked most about this workshop

The understanding of the big picture of evaluation approaches.

Learning from peers.

Allows for initial processing of inputs, and to start developing evaluation plan (though still draft) to be able to already identify, think of possible concerns, problems.

Time to look at my programmes and evaluation. Time to have MOST SIGNIFICANT INTERACTION with partner.

I like the way all participants were made to give their input to workshop instead of being listeners.

Introduction to new methodologies.

The integration of partners & IDRC staff.

I like the fact that IDRC and its partners are together engaging in this activity so that they can come up with a common understanding of the projects’ evaluation needs, challenges, as well as work to make a plan. Also with the presence of the evaluation experts, it made it even easier to refine our plans. It also helps that we hear what other projects are doing.

The guidelines in the morning for starting the work. – The working group.

Participation du groupe et collaboration récipiendaire + CRDI.

Facilitation, methodology & process.


Offering a basket of methodologies.

Permits the project partners to develop their evaluation designs/plans. Good mix of theory and practice; the three methodologies are coalescing in one workshop.

Mentoring during the peer review session.


What I liked least about this workshop

Low temperature because of AC.

Not applicable.

Jet lag.

I think I liked all items.

Some exercises in the middle, I didn’t have al the elements to work with.

La durée est courte et ne permet pas de bien comprendre et essayer la combination de methodologies.

Very short. No time to recover from jet lag.

Lack of structure on day 2.

Not discussing the methodologies right through and understanding comparative advantages and disadvantages and overlaps. Duration was short.

Not applicable.


3a. I would [14] participate in such a workshop again. Choose, explain.

I want to learn more about other evaluation methodologies.

I would like to learn more about specific approaches & tools.

But I would also want all core project team members on board, so that they have  chance to ask questions and go through similar thought processes face-to-face.

Yes, because I have learnt a lot with a short space of 2 days,

It’s been always useful and helpful for me attending workshops. Firstly because we need capacity-building. Secondly, the learnings we collect not only from facilitators but also from other participants help us improve our own activities.

It has been very useful to think the project from this perspective.

Oui! En ICT4D on a besoin de bien réflechir sur les méthodologies et approaches d’évaluation!

Gained strong overview, future networking opportunities.

I think this is vital to keep evaluation work current and visionary.

It’s enriching for sure and makes an M&E facilitator reflect and enrich the practice.

So informative, focused, enriching and interesting.


3b. I would not [1] participate in such a workshop again. Choose, explain.

The best place to face-to-face meet with evaluation experts to align what we are doing one or point me(?) at the right path. [Comment consistent with a positive answer but marked as a not wanting to participate in another workshop.]


4. If IDRC repeats this type of workshop, what elements would you maintain?

Wheel of questions. Working with examples. Demand based facilitator assist. Focus on getting training (?) done.

All of it p maybe longer time for practical exercises (exercises with methodology introduced).

IDRC needs to repeat this process with partners on(?) RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES

Pre preparation, buzz groups.

One-on-one sessions, introduction to new methodologies, work more on individual projects. IDRC+partner to team-up.

The previous preparation work through the questions & web page.

Pairing (?) and buzz groups.

Poster display (more time for poster viewing and interacting).

Le travail sur des projets réels.

Peering with IDRC Project Officers.

Speakers, individual project consultations, buzz sessions.

Content, design (combine theory and group work).


Pairing, mentoring, case studies.


5. If IDRC repeats this type of workshop, what elements would you drop?

Presentations after lunch.

Not applicable.

Make sure you invite project partners that are ready for evaluation?

Nothing. This was just OK.

Generic focus, bring more cases, more cases on monitoring and data collection for evaluation.

Too much information in a very short time.

I don’t have anything to drop, except give a request to give ample time for practical work.

Too much information, maybe reduce some exercises.

Les presentations rapids de certain questions fondamentales. On a besoin de prendre son temp!

On site plenary(?) after documentation.


The short duration, the rush.



6. If IDRC repeats this type of workshop, what elements would you add?

I would include practice examples of the different methodologies.

More emphasis on integrating approaches and tools.

Depends. Are we working on a two-day time frame again? If yes, none.

Possibly more partners.

ICT indicators. Proper manner to network in the follow-up.

Time for project presentations, eg. 5 min of fame time(?).

In a next workshop you could include the issues that emerge here.

Discussions overt save les experts.

On site electronic documentation.

Get people to share their project in 5-10 minutes as we ended up repeating.

Comparative advantages, disadvantages and overlaps among methodologies, particularly OM and LFA.

Develop a “complete” evaluation plan.

Comparative case studies.


7. The most important follow-up from this workshop for IDRC is….

Developing a guide and workshop on “Getting started with evaluation”.

Providing support when projects actually design, plan and execute M&E systems.

Ensuring mentoring support.

Ensuring partners and POs here make use of their learnings.

See whether all partners have used their evaluation results in planning for next cycle.

Document all and keep in touch with us to help us do better evaluation.

To keep up with the network of participants through a list.              

Continued dialogue and give some kind of mentoring, giving feedback to the evaluation activities undertaken by IDRC partner.

To receive the information that was produced here.

Réflexion sérieuse et continue sur l´évaluation en ICT4D.

Local knowledge basis to inform future reseach on evaluation.

Websites and references to enable us to continue to share.

Making sure project have M&E plans that are ambitious yet rational and have a buy in from decision makers.

To have partners produce their whole plans and each complete plan properly reviewed in depth by evaluation resource persons.

Review of the actual and final evaluation plan.


8. Your expectation about NETWORKING

* Was not fulfilled

8 Was partly fulfilled

6 Was fulfilled

I came late so I missed the introductions.

Good that we already have some work relationship with some partners. Opportunity invest in (?) further work relationships. New resources persons to tap.

Cross PI regional sharing very IMP ALL PO’s should be involved.

I didn’t get to know other IDRC partners.

There are many people that maybe will be difficult to maintain contact.

Most of this happened after the peer review session which was too late.

Didn’t get to work too much with different partners (although it may be asking too much).

I only dated half of the participants J


9. Your exposure or update on OUTCOME MAPPING

1 Was not adequate

9 Was adequate

4 Was a good start

I think I will have to spend time learning the specifics.

The presentation was concise but adequate.

I was not here.

Want to get into the details. Concept is known.


10. Your exposure to MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE

2 Was not adequate

4 Was adequate

8 Was a good start

Would like to know the interviewing skills but will followup later.

This is the first time I have learned it and sure to improve my knowledge.

It would be interesting to get some practical tips on how to collect story telling, eg how to ask questions.

I was not here.

Need details.


11. Your exposure or update on GENDER EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

2 Was not adequate

7 Was adequate

5 Was a good start

Again I have to invest time in learning more.

But integration opportunities mentioned and outcomes unclear.

I was not here.

Was very cursory and sketchy.


12. On a scale of 1-10 (10=best) comment on the utility of the workshop for your project.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: