The Spider Diagram method is a “quick and dirty” way to get a useful snapshot about how participants evaluate a workshop. Use it along with interviews and if necessary in addition to a more formal survey. It allows you to give participants an immediate visual impression of the group’s thinking related to an event.
We used it this time to get an idea of how the group felt about the accomplishment of the workshop objectives and the different sessions of this 3 ½ day event.
Did we accomplish what we planned to do?
- “Identify a set of story ideas”: Definitively yes.
- “Identify means, incentives, and opportunities to strengthen collective communications”: participants agree that this was achieved “more or less”.
- “Develop a work plan for 2009 collective communications”; And “Provide input into the CGIAR Reform”: Some say yes, some say more or less.
How did the different sessions go?
- The two opportunities of a dialogue with the Transition Management Team where highly appreciated and got the best rankings.
The group appreciated almost equally:
- The River of Life where Nathan Russell, with the help of many long time members of the group, reviewed the history of the different attempts of collective communication actions in the CGIAR.
- The Speed Open Space where participants could share and learn more about other’s peoples work and ideas in 20 minute parallel sessions.
- The presentation by Helen Leitch (WorldFish) on the results of WorldFish’s CGIAR center survey on Communications.
Another group of similar and positive rated sessions were:
- The story development session led by Jeff Hawskins from Burness Communications.
- The collective effort to set up and prioritize a work plan for 2009.
The one single session that received mixed evaluation was the Samaon Circle on Communications in the New CGIAR. Was it because of the topic or the format of the session? This is something we still need to figure out.
Social, Logistics (thanks WorldFish) and facilitation got very positive rankings.