Summary of Evaluation Survey 2012 Theme Meetings and Global Strategic Planning
Number of respondents: 34
1. How would you rate the THEME meetings you attended? excellent 4 12% very good 16 47% good 8 24% average 0 0% below average 0 0%
2. What did you LEAST like about the THEME meetings you participated in? (Choose TWO) Venue and food Insufficient involvement of key people Lack of connection to other themes Lack of time Some discussions were too long Some discussions were inconclusive Poor balance between review of current operations and future planning Other (People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.) 3. What did you MOST appreciate about the THEME meetings you participated in? (Choose TWO) Productive discussions with enough time for thorough exploration 9 32% Focused reviews on specific topics 10 36% Good organization, facilitation, and time management 11 39% Good brainstorming and discussion of new ideas 11 39% Participation of regional staff 14 50% Venue and food 0 0% Other 1 4% (People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.)
4. Any other comments about the THEME meetings? The presence of staff from different regions helped to have rich discussions and the back to back hosting of consumption and production meetings proved to be very useful and productive I would like to see that some of the conclusions from the theme meetings will actually get implemented. If not, there is no meaning to have specific discussion topics without any follow-up or action. I think it should be open for more staff who work on the issue and do the job well! Back to back meetings (with a weekend in between) would guarantee involvement of key people from related themes. Feedback obtained from others very critical. Some regional staff would like to join all theme meetings but the time gap between Production/Consumption and Germplasm/Breeding meetings were too far apart to allow this. The rationale for separating the theme meetings this way is unclear. Theme Germplasm meeting can be more future-oriented. For example, more time can be allocated to discuss potential methodology for gene discovery etc. Regional representatives haven't opportunity to participate on all four Themes meetings even they conducted activities on these directions. Next Theme Breeding meeting should be held outside HQ, preferable in Central Asia.
5. If you attended the two-day STRATEGIC PLANNING event in the Auditorium: How would you rate this event? excellent 3 9% very good 15 44% good 8 24% average 1 3% below average 2 6%
6. What did you MOST appreciate about the STRATEGIC PLANNING event? (Choose TWO) Productive discussions with enough time for thorough exploration 6 22% Concise and informative presentations 18 67% Good organization, facilitation, and time management 10 37% Good brainstorming and discussion of new ideas 2 7% Participation of regional staff 14 52% Venue and food 2 7% Other 0 0% (People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.) 7. What did you LEAST like about the STRATEGIC PLANNING event? (Choose TWO) Poor balance between review of current operations and future planning 17 63% Insufficient involvement of key people 5 19% Lack of time for substantive questions 15 56% Presentations were too long 0 0% Venue and food 2 7% Other 6 22% (People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.)
8. Any other comments about the STRATEGIC PLANNING event? How were the topics for closed discussion selected? We discuss a lot about 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' approaches. However, we practice only 'top- down' approach in this meeting. I appreciate the participation of more NRS; however, most of them did not actively participate in discussions. We should encourage them to get more feedbacks from them. Also, I appreciate the recognition of selected staff through awards. However, the process has to be more transparent, and the appropriate staff have to be recognized. There was too little discussion about things that didn't go well in the past year and an honest assessment to learn from what went wrong and to improve in the future. Discussion about the situation in CWANA and Oceania was totally skipped (no regional presentation at all). Maybe only open 2 days is enough. Because we always busy to write report and join many meeting during end year (Nov-Dec). Venue and data of each meeting should be planned for participation of more specialists from HQ and regional stuff. Time allocated for presentation for each theme is too short. Contents on the presentation on "donor's intelligent" do not really help. It would be nice to learn donor profile, recent changes and trends. Mixing different presentations topics was interesting. Not clear why those particular focused discussion topics were chosen and what outcomes we wanted to get from these discussions. For most presentations there was little time left over for questions and discussion. Need to discuss about the maintenance of infrastructure. For example, repairs of glasshouse facilities at HQ. Use of vacant land at HQ. Eating food on one-way plates and with plastic cutlery is not very nice and is not a good sign of our environmental concerns and efforts to reduce our carbon footprint.
9. If you attended the two days of FOCUSED DISCUSSIONS following the Strategic Planning: How would you rate this meeting? excellent 3 9% very good 5 15% good 3 9% average 3 9% below average 0 0%
10. Any other comments about the FOCUSED DISCUSSION meeting? Noted that some statements raised by the audience were noticed by the presenters, but left unanswered. It would be good to record Q&As from the focused discussions, and perhaps allow answers/discussions on them at a later stage. The narrower focus of the discussions was somewhat better than last year. The quality of uninhibited discussion was commendable. New ideas should be discussed annually. Particularly like to soft-skilled session on leadership. This should be done more often. It would be good to have clear "where do we go from there" take home messages. Better to have had fewer topics and gone deeper. Is it possible to have an additional small discussion among local staff, who might have a little Chinese-English language barrier but are very experienced in corresponding theme research, and submit their opinions for further discussion (either in oral style by a representative, or an unofficial written report)? It was not clear how and why the subjects for discussion where selected and decided upon. R&D committee should have been involved prior to the discussion. Questions too broad to be of any use for planning strategies. Discussions were based on anecdotes and personal impressions, not facts.