Learning and Evaluation/Archive/Grantmaking and Programs/Learning & Evaluation portal/Learning day August 2013/Feedback

Feedback from the eventEdit

Following the event, all participants were sent a five question survey asking about their experiences with the event. The good news: people enjoyed the event and found it valuable!

Feedback SummaryEdit

  • Attendees at the event by in large were very satisfied with the event, and would recommend it to a friend (Overall Net Promoter Score: 31%)
  • We need to figure out a way to scale this sort of experience sharing
  • Feedback indicates time was a challenge as always: needed more breaks and yet more time! Could have prioritized the most important activity (Case study)
  • Going forward, we should prioritize learning sessions around program evaluation, program planning/designing, strategic planning, and governance.


Survey feedbackEdit

1. Which best describes your role in regards to Wikimedia Grantmaking? Select all that apply.Edit

(Total unique respondents = 29),
 
Note: "Other" answers: "Contractor"; ""CIS-A2K Contractor"

2. How likely is it that you would recommend the Learning Day to a friend, colleague, or chapter?Edit

Total Respondents:
 
Non-WMF respondents:
 

Overall Net Promoter Scores by group

"The Net Promoter Score is based on the fundamental perspective that every company’s customers can be divided into three categories: Promoters, Passives, and Detractors."[1] Studies indicate that if a person is truly satisfied with a product, they will recommend it to a friend. The Net Promoter Score is used across many industries and products to assess customer satisfaction and loyalty. While imperfect as all metrics are, this particular metric gets us a little closer to understanding how satisfied people really were with their experiences at the Learning Day:

Status Staff Grantee Current Committee Member Chapter Member
"Detractor" (0-6 score) 0 0 0 1
"Neutral" (7-8 score) 9 5 5 1
"Promoter" (9-10 score) 2 6 1 3
"Net Promoter Score (% Promoters - % Detractors) 18% 55% 17% 40%

3. What was the most important thing you learned at the event?Edit

  • As someone who is involved in almost all grants programs, i had have previous experience. But still, it was interesting to see people's thinking about FDC jobs and how that process works.
  • We are focused in so many tangible measures of success that some of them that are not tangible are usually forgotten or underrepresented. For example, when we get some things for free or when we re-activate older users, we don't realize most of the time that this is something that should be encouraged, but we usually keep focused only in the measures of how much money did we spend or how many new editors did we bring.
  • That more infomercial is needed for WMF staff about the way different grant programs work.
  • How many different kinds of grants and grantees there are, the many roles that go into making the whole process work.
  • To evaluate the programs I have been working on. Learned how important it is to gain feedback, monitor the successes and failures and learn from them to be more productive.
  • The roles of the different actors in the grantmaking process.
  • How the FDC review works, and how much the reviewing process it is different (mentally and practically) to the application process.
  • That there's a fair amount of common understanding between representatives of different audiences, but still a lot of learning to be done.
  • What the staff thinks about when evaluating a grant request
  • The availability of the metrics tool. I will now be able to track and evaluate impact of programs that I am involved in.
  • Coordination and collaboration in the Wikipedia way!
  • Global perpective of the movement

4. If you could change one thing about the event, what would it be?Edit

  • specific detailed topics. more sharing of ideas and more workshops
  • Organized with much more anticipation so everybody knows when will be and where.
  • Timing. Too many people came late or left early.
  • I would have had more panels and more open, small group, or freeform brainstorming and mingling. With so many amazing contributors in the room, it felt a bit stifled to stick to the day's script and agenda. That said, it was obvious a lot of thought, planning, and effort went into the event, and I appreciate the organization and the effort by the organizers. You know, Wikipedians, not crazy about structure (at least some of us).
  • We could have started a little earlier, and spent the extra time on the panel discussions.
  • Give more time for the mock grant application process: that was the most educational part of the process.
  • I wnat it for ALL chapters members :-)
  • More balance between numbers of WMF staff/committee members/grantees/community members.
  • Perhaps a few minutes talking about experiences with the different grant programs and trying to identify common problems and ways to solve them. I realise it could be somewhat time consuming, but it would help people at all ends of the spectrum (grantees and grantmakers, committee members, etc) see the different problems. I'm not sure everyone got to see all the different POVs with the last exercise, which was very cool btw.
  • More time, preferably not during/after Wikimania as people were too tired or had limited time to spend at the workshop.
  • More 5 mins breaks and coffee!
  • Fetishising failure

5. What topics would you be most interested in seeing addressed in future Learning events (whether in person or online sessions)? Please assign stars based on level of interest.Edit

(Note: non-WMF respondents only)

Rank Topic Average Value Min Value Max Value Standard Deviation Responses
1. Program evaluation: how to better understand the impact of programmatic work 4.13 2.5 5 0.83 15
2. Program design: how to design programs 4.1 2.5 5 0.71 15
3. Organizational strategy: how to design an annual plan 3.93 2 5 0.92 15
4. Governance: how to build effective leadership 3.67 2.5 5 0.9 15
5. Organization growth: when and how to grow budgets and staff 3.6 2 5 1.09 15
6. Needs assessment: how to identify the needs of local communities 3.5 2 5 0.94 15
7. Communication: how to better articulate our movements stories 3.27 1.5 5 1.02 15

"Other" options suggested:

  • Project management: how to carry out programs
  • Real cases of grants that were approved and rejected, and why

ReferencesEdit