EVALUATION MANAGER
CERTIFICATION PROGRAMME
WORKSHOP EVALUATION REPORT
Turin, Italy
July, 2013
Index
I‐INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 3
II‐WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES AND CONTENT ............................................................................... 4
Certification Programme Overall Objective ...................................................................... 4
Workshop Main Objective................................................................................................. 4
III‐PARTICIPANTS’ EVALUATION ................................................................................................ 5
3.1 Multiple Choice Questions .......................................................................................... 5
3.2 Open questions results................................................................................................ 8
3.3. Daily comments on the course content: like, dislike and proposals of change ....... 11
IV‐ CONCLUSION FROM PARTICIPANTS’ EVALUATION ........................................................... 16
V‐ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A FUTURE EDITION .................................................................. 17
ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................. 18
Annex I – Evaluation main results ................................................................................... 19
Annex II ‐ Summary of participants’ evaluation results ................................................. 20
Annex III ‐ Comparison with ITC‐ILO’s 2012 benchmark ................................................ 22
Annex IV – List of Participants ......................................................................................... 23
Annex IV Timetable ......................................................................................................... 30
Annex V – Evaluation questionnaire ............................................................................... 31
2|End‐of‐training report‐ EMCP
WORKSHOP EVALUATION REPORT
Evaluation Manager
Certification Programme
I‐INTRODUCTION
In the following report a summary of the comments made by the participants after each day
is presented with a summary of the evaluation questionnaires filled‐in by the participants. Every
day, participants were asked to identify what they did like, dislike and to propose constructive
changes for a future edition of the workshop. In addition to that, a questionnaire was
distributed at the end of the training to the participants who attended the “Evaluation Manager
Certification Programme (EMCP)” workshop, which was jointly organised by EVAL and the ITC‐
ILO from 1 to 3 July 2013 in Turin.
Sixteen (16) officers1 from various ILO field offices and technical departments, who are
involved in managing project evaluations, have benefited from the training sessions and have
completed the first part of the certification programme. This first part consisted in the transfer
of theoretical and practical knowledge in line with the required core competencies to become
an ILO evaluation manager. A second phase is foreseen, in which the trained participants will
have to manage a real project evaluation under EVAL’s guidance and supervision. After the
successful completion of this second phase, participants will be awarded the certification.
At the end of the workshop, all participants had the opportunity to express their level of
satisfaction in writing. 16 out of the 16 participants have completed the ITC‐ILO standard
evaluation questionnaire built around the various aspects forming a training activity:
1
18 participants were initially enrolled, 2 could not make the journey to Turin for personal reasons
(Lost of a family member and Medical forced rest)
3|End‐of‐training report‐ EMCP






program organization
training objectives, contents and clarity
trainer’s performance
interaction between participants
related services and facilities
usefulness
This complete questionnaire can be found in the annex section.
II‐WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES AND CONTENT
The workshop was designed by EVAL with the collaboration of the Sustainable Development
and Governance Programme of the ITC‐ILO in order to certify a maximum of
25 individuals who have the responsibility to manage evaluations of ILO technical cooperation
projects.
The workshop objectives and content were the following:
Certification Programme Overall Objective

To upgrade the quality of evaluation management in the ILO and to expand the pool of
qualified candidates that have volunteered in the past or that will volunteer in the
future to become Evaluation Managers.
Workshop Main Objective

To acquire the technical and practical knowledge, tools and techniques for the core
competencies of an evaluation manager in order to effectively manage evaluation of ILO
technical cooperation projects.
4|End‐of‐training report‐ EMCP
III‐PARTICIPANTS’ EVALUATION
3.1 Multiple Choice Questions
In the following section the most significant comments made by participants and the results
extracted from the 21 multiple choice questions are presented. The evaluation criteria are built
on a 1 to 5 scale, 1 standing for the minimum satisfaction and 5 for the maximum. The complete
and detailed results are presented in a table in the annex section.
The overall score given to the training, based on the question 21 “are you satisfied with the
overall quality of the training activity?” is 98% (4.88). 100% of the participants responded with
the rank of 4 or 5 indicating that participants are highly‐satisfied with the workshop. In the field
of andragogy (adult‐education), satisfaction is usually correlated to usefulness, in that sense
through questions 19 and 20, it is deemed that participants found the workshop useful and that
they are planning to apply the leanings for the benefits of their employer, the ILO. (see table
below)
Usefulness of the training and global satisfaction
Questions and answers
Are you satisfied with the overall quality of the
activity?
How likely is it that you will apply some of what
you have learned?
How like is it that your institutions/employer will
benefit from your participation in this activity?
Average
%
4.88
98%
% of answers
between 4 ‐ 5
100%
5.00
100%
100%
4.94
99%
100%
Training objectives and content: questions 2 to 3.
The programme objectives, content and clarity have been evaluated positively; the overall
average for the two questions covering these aspects is 93 % (4.66). The course objectives and
content were presented through the preparatory readings sent prior to the workshop and
repeated on the first day through a visual of the core‐competencies for an evaluation manager
in line with the presentation of the workshop timetable. During the workshop before each
session, the facilitators have constantly referred to that visual in order to link content with
objectives.
Information received before the activity
Question 1 asked if before participating in the workshop, participants were given clear
information to understand if the course could meet their learning needs. The score given to this
question is 84% (4.19).
The whole EMCP has been firstly advertised through a flyer
communicated via email in two different waves within the ILO and secondly the course content
as well as the logistic arrangements have been communicated through emails to the enrolled
participants prior to the workshop in Turin.
5|End‐of‐training report‐ EMCP
Information received before the activity
Questions and answers
Average
%
4.19
84%
Before participating in the activity, were you clear
about its objectives, contents and methods?
% of answers
between 4 ‐ 5
81%
Learning methods
The participants are satisfied with the learning methods used to conduct the training. The
feedback given in the written component of the feedback as well the score of 90 % (4.50)
illustrate well the participants’ satisfaction on the approach and learning methods used to
deliver the workshop content. The mix of presentations, discussions and interactive group
works based on case studies reproducing ILO realities were the main learnings methods used.
The EVAL’s facilitator had the leadership with the presentations and Turin’s facilitator's effort
was focused on supervising the interactive group works.
The way the activity was delivered
Questions and answers
Average
%
4.69
94%
% of answers
between 4 ‐ 5
100%
4.63
93%
100%
4.50
90%
94%
To what extent were the activity's objectives
achieved?
Given the activity's objectives, how appropriate
were the activity's contents?
Were the learning methods used generally
appropriate?
Gender Issues
The participants were asked to assess if the course adequately integrated gender issues into
the training with the question “Have gender issues been adequately integrated in the training?”
the median score given is 82% (4.13). Gender issues were addressed in the training as a cross‐
cutting theme however the training was not designed to address gender issues as a primary
component. A deeper analysis of results shows that only 75% gave a 4‐5 to that question and
that men have been generally more severe on the gender question. Compared to ITC‐ILO’s
benchmark (3.93) the score is however good. The fact that the group of participants was equally
gender‐balanced may have contributed to that good result.
Number of participants
Number of women
Ratio of Women
16
8
50%
Facilitators’ performance
The facilitators’ performance score are excellent, all score given are above 90% for both,
Craig Russon and Guillaume Mercier. This indicates that participants were highly satisfied with
6|End‐of‐training report‐ EMCP
their performance. The comments made through the open questions also demonstrate that high
level of satisfaction (see comments under the section 3.2 on this report)
Craig Russon (EVAL)
Questions and answers
Average
%
% of answers
between 4 ‐ 5
4.75
4.88
4.88
95%
98%
98%
100%
100%
100%
Average
%
% of answers
between 4 ‐ 5
4.81
4.88
4.63
96%
98%
93%
100%
100%
94%
Overall Contribution
Technical Skills
Teaching Skills
Guillaume Mercier (ITC‐ILO)
Questions and answers
Overall Contribution
Technical Skills
Teaching Skills
Workshop environment: the group of participants, the media/material and logistical support.
The participants were asked to evaluate the contribution of the other participants and the
interaction level among the group; in response to the question “Did the group of participants
with whom you attended the activity contribute to your learning?” the average response is 98%
(4.88). This shows that group's dynamic has played a major role in contributing to the success of
this workshop.
Regarding the materials used, the participants have judged them as excellent, with
response to the question with a 90 % (4.50). Hard copies of the ILO evaluation manager's
handbook, the ILO policy guidelines of RBM evaluation and a manual with all slides and cases
studies were distributed to participants. All those above listed references as well as many
others were put together on a USB key and given to the participants in their soft version.
Participants rated the activity at 93 % (4.63) for the logistical organisation. Many
participants have however expressed dissatisfaction about the tea breaks and the food offered
at the cafeteria. Participants gave as well a high score of 96% (4.81) for the secretariat and the
work done by Carmelisa Magli from the ITC‐ILO who has dealt with most of the administrative
issues in collaboration with Estève Dal Gobbo from HRD.
7|End‐of‐training report‐ EMCP
3.2 Open questions results
In the next section, the main comments and feedbacks given in writing by participants
through the evaluation questionnaire and the daily feedbacks are presented and regrouped into
five clusters of comments:
1. The aspects of the workshop that were the least useful or that will need to be improved
2. The aspects of the workshop that were the most useful
3. Suggestions for the resource persons to improve the overall quality of their
contributions
4. Other participants’ particular comments and suggestions
5. Daily feedbacks on the workshop content
1. The aspects of the workshop that were the least useful or that will need to be improved
 Examples used in the exercises, most were negative or examples to be criticised. I think
positive examples would also have a value to add
 General presentation a bit long
 A few small adjustments on exercises and case studies could be improved
 Session on ethics
 Reduce number of words presentations
 The combinations of presentations and exercises
 Case studies selected
 Fish bowl can be re‐designed to involve other participants too
 The module of soft skills: touched on too many subjects and necessarily superficially
 Many papers. It’s better to prioritize electronic options
 Short time for exercises
 Some examples of the exercises were not good
 Time to read the exercise was not enough
 The opening speeches
 Some of case studies
2. The aspects of the workshop that were the most useful
• All except first day presentations that could be shortened to give space to new stuff to
be learnt
• All aspects especially the checklist and exercises
• Resource persons were excellent
• Training material well designed and appropriate
• The participants were also engaged and provided useful insights
• Concise and objective
• Practical
• Dynamic
• Diversity of the group
• Plenary exercises
• Balance between lectures and exercises
• Good basis of documentation (handbook, policy, etc)
• Content/training manual/handbook
• Facilitation
• Practice
• Group work
• Duration (3 days)
• Good selection of participants
• Presentations
8|End‐of‐training report‐ EMCP
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Handbook and other documents
The practical examples
Content of the workshop
Dynamic presentations by the facilitators
Networking
Only ILO participants with knowledge of the house (no other organisations)
Gender balance of the group
The combination of theory with exercises
The training manual was very useful
The practical exercises
The enthusiasm of the facilitators
Group works
Most of the examples
Structure of the course
Content
Material
Facilitation
3. Suggestions for the resource persons to improve the overall quality of their contributions
• Only the exercises could be improved by choosing better examples/text/documents
• Change some exercise (exercises to include good practices)
• Adjust time needed for certain sessions, i.e. more time for roles, influential evaluations,
briefing, inception report, reporting (less time for dissemination)
• Honestly both were excellent and most beyond the call of duty (most appreciated)
• Craig is an amazing trainer
• Both were very good! And complement each other
• More time to exercises
• Using some techniques to form the groups
• Would be interesting to have a five‐day workshop (or a phase 2) and have a
comprehensive simulation of an evaluation/maybe visiting a project site
• Allow the ITCILO’s facilitator to contribute more
• Don’t change...excellent work from both!
• Choose better case studies
• Include in other training courses recommendations and suggestions from participants
4. The participants have also made some other particular comments and suggestions, listed
here below:
• More time for exercises – it was a bit rushed
• Engage resource persons from the field
• All good!
• I would have expected more contents on methodological aspects of evaluations: Types
of qualitative and quantitative research techniques that are out there. Perhaps
something on which types of techniques can apply to specific types of projects. Indeed
to judge on the value of an evaluation manager, some more basis on research
techniques would be useful
• The course content is very good but should be delivered in 5 days considering it as a
certification course
• Better choice of case study (update them)
• Deliver full documents of an evaluation exercise prior the training for reading
• Four days would be better to cover the material
9|End‐of‐training report‐ EMCP
•
•
•
•
Some of the exercises should be changed
Extend the duration of the course to provide more time to learning
Better define target groups (programme officers and technical officials)
It would be great to include recently case studies and good examples !
10 | E n d ‐ o f ‐ t r a i n i n g r e p o r t ‐ E M C P
3.3. Daily comments on the course content: like, dislike and proposals of change
DAY 1
LIKE








Slides and handouts
Time for questions and discussion
Well organized
Detailed information provided on several issues
Craig!
Open and communicative
Overview
Interactive, Informative and Timely
DISLIKE
CHANGE

Many papers

First two exercises: define them better

3 days may be not enough
to introduce such a large
theme

Too many frameworks that
confuses us
Morning session a little
easy… General concepts are
known, need to get into
specifics practical challenges
More time to roles!! Less
time to general stuff

Modules 1‐3 can be done in a morning
session
Devote more time to roles and
responsibilities
Revise exercise 3 as it is confusing and
unclear
Nothing to change!!

More practical examples

No change needed

Not enough time for
exercises

All ok




Improve explanations for exercises
Give more time for exercises
Keep up with timetable and finish ppt
Put material in thumb drive



Openness and availability to answer our questions


Participatory approach and engagement of all participants





It is providing a good introduction to the work and responsibilities
of an evaluation manager
The exercises at the end of each module are very useful
Dynamic presentation and good resources



Great moderator / trainer
Open discussions
Small group size

Last exercise



Last exercise was good


Plenty of information, Dynamic straight‐forward information and
Usefulness
I would like more examples in explanation of complex topics
The facilitator was great!!





Book of material


I really like the enthusiasm of the facilitator. Great job!



Clear presentation materials, Clear presentation, Quality Discussion
Useful activities

Exercise of module 4, Atmosphere, Presentations (structure, timing,
pace)
The process of EVAL: RBM, HRBA, Gender: Practical knowledge
through group work
Facilitation, Flexibility
Practical exercise, Group work
I really liked the simple approach to a complex topic
Presence of EVAL’s Director





12 | E n d ‐ o f ‐ t r a i n i n g r e p o r t ‐ E M C P
Not enough time spent on
roles
Too much time spent on
RBM principles that should
be common knowledge
Too many words
presentations
Nothing!

More exercises

Nothing to change

Less printing
The instructor team has no
woman and/or field
evaluator


Include more information on evaluation
policies and documents such as
Evaluation policy Evaluation strategy, etc.
Include a warm‐up exercise / introduction

Put all documents in thumb drive

I won’t change anything
Nothing!
DAY 2
LIKE
DISLIKE

Exercises


The exercises are great


The written material is very useful

Would be important to have
more time for the groups
exercises
Exercises going beyond the
time
Wordy presentations
CHANGE


Provide a sample of inception report
Bring in an external collaborator (evaluator) to provide insights

Exercises need to leave more time devoted …shorter
presentations? Or rather longer session!
The practical exercise on TORS can be improved. Not sufficient
time to fully take all in
The discussion on the time frame (module 7) too long. It is
evident that it will depend on specific situations (case by case)
Service at coffee breaks
Give more time to exercises and de‐briefing
More time for exercises
Fishbowl: making it more participative so that all participants can
ask questions and join






Excellent facilitation
Useful information provided
Great exercise the fish bowl .. really enjoy it
Role play

Good mix of lectures and exercising

The content of today’s subject and exercises should be delivered
in 2 days

Again, thanks for the enthusiasm! Great job!


Resource management working on plans, budgets

Review the time used for the ppt and the exercises more
realistically. You may need more than 3 days. It is important that
participants understand the instructions and the purposes of the
exercises
Better selection of case studies

Presentations



Exercises : different methodologies
Comprehensive material





The workshop has been dynamic and the time is
passing fast
I like the exercises


I really liked the stakeholder engagement exercise
Time for discussions, questions, experience sharing
13 | E n d ‐ o f ‐ t r a i n i n g r e p o r t ‐ E M C P



Coffee breaks: bad service.
Time management





We went late for the coffee breaks and there was no food
anymore
Give more time for exercises
Provide examples of good practices (TORs, etc..)
I don’t like some answers because they don’t consider field
reality
Concert better the examples during the exercises
DAY 3
LIKE
DISLIKE
CHANGE

The workshop as a whole

You could had used better
examples




Plenary/collective exercise to reach
Conclusions : examples on the ethics guidelines

Little time for the exercises












Nothing to say but a very successful programme
Liked the three days
Facilitation : TOR
Improved time management
Birthday celebration of Guillaume
Friendly facilitators
Good environment and group work
Good “match” between resource persons
Good content
Excellent facilitation
I really liked the whole course! It was very well constructed
and fantastically delivered. Congratulations and thank you
for your dedication and professionalism (Andrés)

Nothing


Wordy slides

Would be great to have a one‐stop‐shop at EVAL’s
website with all guidance documents and templates

That it is over


Session on ethics: not clear to me
the purpose of this module
Sometimes the discussions went
into unrelated topics

Some of the examples were not so good but group
works were excellent
Content very good but need two days for today’s
content and more exercises
Time distribution into 5 days (realistic assignment of
time for presentations, participation, exercises
Improve exercises tools with comments from
participants, provide info in pendrive at the end to add
relevant additional info
Maybe make the programme a bit longer in order to
better assimilate the content




Dynamic presentations, documentations and exercises



Time management
Number of participants






It was a very useful training course! Great work
Excellent group!
Excellent teachers!
Guillaume’s Birthday
Time Management
14 | E n d ‐ o f ‐ t r a i n i n g r e p o r t ‐ E M C P





Exercises should include positive examples
Real report should/could b used if text was “frozen up”
by groups
Maybe consider an extra day to give time for more in
depth exercises. I felt that particularly we did not have
sufficient time for the TORs exercise
More collective/Plenary exercises
Send case stud before course starts or the day before as
“homework”
Distribute good examples
Keep discussion more focused
Change examples for exercise (skip the Tajikistan
example)
Ethics module
Explain purpose of each module




15 | E n d ‐ o f ‐ t r a i n i n g r e p o r t ‐ E M C P
The examples – TOR, Report , Inception reports should
not be very good examples. An example that has both
good/good aspects. Use examples of evaluations
managed by some colleagues who are taking part in the
workshop
Better ways of forming groups that will facilitate one
person to work in groups with different people
Time: perhaps 4 days would have been better
Case study example
IV‐ CONCLUSION FROM PARTICIPANTS’ EVALUATION
In general the workshop has been highly evaluated. As presented in the annex section, the
results of the evaluation show that this workshop received higher score on all assessed criteria
compared to the ITC‐ILO’s benchmark levels.
It appears that one of the critical success factors of the workshop has been the group of
participants itself. The selection process and the establishment of eligibility criteria by EVAL for
participants to qualify for the certification programme have resulted in the selection of a group
composed of 16 motivated, interested and high‐level ILO’s officials.
In addition to that, as many mentioned, the fact that the workshop was delivered entirely by ILO
staff and for ILO staff that it was an “in‐house” workshop has contributed to create an open and
positive learning environment. This has resulted in a workshop evaluated as useful for
participants individually as well as for their employers, the ILO.
The use of mixed learning approaches has been also mentioned as an important success factor.
Both facilitators have experience in the two main technical fields of the workshop; the field of
evaluation and the field of teaching. The combination and complementarity have been
underlined as a favourable condition in the delivery of the workshop.
However, it was noted that the facilitators should try to manage the time better. Some group
works could not have been realised fully because of the time constraint. Time management has
been somehow, a major issue in the delivery of the workshop.
The structure and content of the workshop organized around the core‐competencies for an
evaluation manager seems in general an excellent approach. The need for small improvements
has already been identified by both the facilitators and participants which are going to be
addressed in the next edition of the course in particular at the level of some case studies. It was
also suggested to adopt a carry‐through case study of an evaluation to cover the modules for
the area of core‐competencies on technical and professional skills.
The pre‐training phase could also be improved. Information sent prior to the commencement of
the face‐to‐face training course could be enhanced and shared with participants at an earlier
stage from the workshop, enabling participants to better prepare themselves.
V‐ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A FUTURE EDITION
Based on this first edition and with regards with the workshop, it is recommended:




To improve the group work by preparing a carry‐though case study (based on the
WEDGE Project) that can be used to cover the areas of core‐competencies on
technical and professional skills.
To modify the fish bowl exercise, the one used around the UNEG ethical code and to
provide a ‘younger” and better evaluation report as a sample for analysis.
To incorporate success stories about ILO Evaluations management into the
workshop as examples of good practices and as concrete illustrations to support the
presentation of the theoretical aspects
To add a pre‐training survey and to send the training material at least one week
before the trainings for participants to arrive better prepared
To continue using a strict selection process of participants, this is critical in keeping
high, the certification programme credibility. In that sense the group size should be
maintained at 20 maximum and in order to enrol a minimum position’s grade and
experience should be officially established.
The workshop has been also an opportunity to look at EVAL’s policies and procedures from an
“outsider’s” perspective. In that sense, few proposals of change or improvements were made
during the workshop. It is therefore recommended:
 To adopt a responsibility matrix (or a workflow diagram) in order to clarify who does
what in the evaluation process. From the appointment of the evaluation manager
to the dissemination of the evaluation.
 If possible, to clarify how evaluation managers are appointed. This process appears
highly random and political, in other words it seems to be a grey area.
 For EVAL, to have a reflection about extending the responsibility of the evaluation
manager to the dissemination phase of the process
 For EVAL, to reflect about recruiting consultant (evaluator) not only based on their
qualifications (CVs) but also incorporating other selection criteria that could be
presented in a complete technical proposal (equivalent to the inception report) for
important evaluation assignments contracted to firm. (Qualification of the firm,
understanding of the context and TORs, quality and relevance of the proposed
methodology, qualification and experience of the key staff, work plan, etc.)
 To coordinate with PARDEV in order to evaluate the possibility to merge the annual
project progress report with the annual evaluation report.
17 | E n d ‐ o f ‐ t r a i n i n g r e p o r t ‐ E M C P
ANNEXES
18 | E n d ‐ o f ‐ t r a i n i n g r e p o r t ‐ E M C P
Annex I – Evaluation main results
Annex II ‐ Summary of participants’ evaluation results
A906415 ‐ Evaluation manager certification programme
Language: EN
Date: 01/07/2013 to 03/07/2013
Venue: Turin Centre
Number of Participants: 16
Returned Questionnaires (number and percentage): 17 ; 106.2%
Questions
Before participating in this activity, did you have enough information to understand whether it could meet your learning
needs?
To what extent were the activity's objectives achieved?
Given the activity's objectives, how appropriate were the activity's contents?
Was the balance between theory and practice appropriate?
Have gender issues been adequately integrated in the training?
Were the learning methods used generally appropriate?
How would you judge the resource persons' overall contribution?
Craig Russon ‐ RP ‐ Overall quality
RP ‐ Technical skills
RP ‐ Teaching skills
Guillaume Mercier ‐ RP ‐ Overall quality
RP ‐ Technical skills
RP ‐ Teaching skills
Did the group of participants with whom you attended the activity contribute to your learning?
Was the atmosphere within the group pleasant?
Were the materials used during the activity appropriate?
Would you say that the logistics of the activity were well organized?
Would you say that the administrative support/secretariat was efficient?
How likely is it that you will apply some of what you have learned?
How likely is it that your institution/employer will benefit from your participation in the activity?
Are you satisfied with the overall quality of the activity?
Average
aver.
%4&5
4.19
4.69
4.63
4.19
4.13
4.50
4.81
4.75
4.88
4.88
4.81
4.88
4.63
4.88
4.69
4.50
4.63
4.81
5.00
4.94
4.88
4.63
81%
100%
100%
88%
75%
94%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
94%
100%
94%
94%
94%
100%
100%
100%
100%
95%
2012
ref
3.68
4.18
4.27
3.93
4.29
4.43
4.32
4.31
4.38
4.47
4.46
4.46
4.43
4.28
Demographic information
Sex
Female
Male
freq
8
8
percent.
50%
50%
Annex III ‐ Comparison with ITC‐ILO’s 2012 benchmark
Evaluation manager certification programme
A906415
01/07/2013 – 03/07/2013
Annex IV – List of Participants
SWITZERLAND**
Full Name
Mr. Sergio Andrés IRIARTE QUEZADA
1
:
Institution:
Position:
Address:
Tel. /
Mobile:
ILO HQ Geneva
Knowledge Management Officer
Geneva ;
+4122 799 7849
Fax:
Web:
E-mail:
iriarte@ilo.org
Full Name
Mr. Natanael PEREIRA LOPES NETO
BRAZIL
:
Institution:
Position:
Address:
Tel. /
Mobile:
Fax:
Web:
E-mail:
ILO CO-Brasilia
Senior Programme Assistant
Brasilia ; BRAZIL
+ 5561 2106 4611
+ 5561 3322 4352
lopesn@oitbrasil.org.br
2
EGYPT
Full Name
Ms. Nashwa BELAL
3
:
Institution:
Position:
Address:
Tel. /
Mobile:
ILO DWT/CO-Cairo
Senior Programme Officer
Cairo; EGYPT
+202 2 7350123 ext 030
Fax:
Web:
E-mail:
+202 2 7360889
Full Name
Mr. Luca FEDI
belal@ilo.org, belal.nashwa@gmail.com
**duty station
EGYPT
4
:
Institution:
Position:
Address:
Tel. /
Mobile:
ILO DWT/CO- Cairo
Senior Programme and Operations Officer
Cairo ; EGYPT
+20 227 350 123 ext 000
Fax:
Web:
E-mail:
fedi@ilo.org
Full Name
Ms. Makda Getachew ABEBE
ETHIOPIA
:
Institution:
Position:
Address:
Tel. /
Mobile:
Fax:
Web:
E-mail:
ILO RO Addis Ababa
Programme Officer, Regional Programming Unit
Addis Ababa ; ETHIOPIA
+251 11 544 4063
+251 11 544 5573
getachew@ilo.org
5
HUNGARY
Full Name
Ms. Maria BORSOS
6
:
Institution:
Position:
Address:
Tel. /
Mobile:
ILO DWT/CO-Budapest
Programme Officer
Budapest; HUNGARY
+36 1 30149 07
Fax:
Web:
E-mail:
+36 1 353 3683
www.ilo.org/budapest
borsos@ilo.org
Full Name
Mr. Thomas KRING
INDIA
7
:
Institution:
Position:
Address:
Tel. /
Mobile:
ILO DWT/CO-New Delhi
CTA, Manager of the subregional project ”Way out of Informality\”
New Delhi ; INDIA
+91 8527896394
Fax:
Web:
E-mail:
+91 1124602111
kring@ilo.org
Full Name
Ms. Eszter SZABO
HUNGARY
:
Institution:
Position:
Address:
Tel. /
Mobile:
Fax:
Web:
E-mail:
ILO DWT/CO-Budapest
Senior Programme Assistant
Budapest ; HUNGARY
+36 1 3014915
+36 1 353 3683
www.ilo.org/budapest
szabo@ilo.org
8
CHILE
Full Name
Mr. Andrés YUREN
9
:
Institution:
Position:
Address:
Tel. /
Mobile:
ILO DWT/CO-Santiago
Senior Specialist on Employers Activities
Santiago ; CHILE
+562 2580 5500
Fax:
Web:
E-mail:
+562 2580 5580
yuren@oitchile.cl
Full Name
Ms. Cybele BURGA SOLIS
PERU
10
:
Institution:
Position:
Address:
Tel. /
Mobile:
ILO RO Lima
Regional Monitoring and Evaluation Officer
PO Box: 14-124; Lima; Peru - PERU
+511 6150373
Fax:
Web:
E-mail:
+511 6150400
burga@oit.org.pe
Full Name
Ms. Rose KARIKARI ANANG
SOUTH AFRICA
:
Institution:
Position:
Address:
Tel. /
Mobile:
Fax:
Web:
E-mail:
ILO DWT/CO-Pretoria
Senior Specialist, Employers Activities
Pretoria ; SOUTH AFRICA
+271 28188045
+271 28188087
anang@ilo.org
11
SWITZERLAND
Full Name
Ms. Valentina FORASTIERI
12
:
Institution:
Position:
Address:
Tel. /
Mobile:
ILO HQ Geneva
Senior Specialist on Health Promotion and Training/Coordinator
Health Promotion and Well-Being Training Cluster
Geneva ; SWITZERLAND
+4122 7997167
Fax:
Web:
E-mail:
www.ilo.org/safework
forastieri@ilo.org
Full Name
Ms. Maria Beatriz MELLO DA CUNHA
SWITZERLAND
13
:
Institution:
Position:
Address:
Tel. /
Mobile:
ILO HQ Geneva
Sectoral and Programme Issues Specialist
Geneva ; SWITZERLAND
+4122 799 6562
Fax:
Web:
E-mail:
cunha@ilo.org
Full Name
Mr. Oktavianto Akhirsyah PASARIBU
SWITZERLAND
:
Institution:
Position:
Address:
Tel. /
Mobile:
Fax:
Web:
E-mail:
ILO HQ Geneva
Programme Analyst
Geneva ; SWITZERLAND
+4122 799 7989
+4122 799 8515
pasaribu@ilo.org
14
THAILAND
Full Name
Mr. Matthieu COGNAC
15
:
Institution:
Position:
Address:
Tel. /
Mobile:
ILO RO-Bangkok
Youth Employment Specialist
Bangkok ; THAILAND
+66 22881797
Fax:
Web:
E-mail:
+66
cognac@ilo.org
Full Name
Mr. Richard HOWARD
THAILAND
:
Institution:
Position:
Address:
Tel. /
Mobile:
Fax:
Web:
E-mail:
ILO DWT/CO-Bangkok
HIV and AIDS Specialist, Asia and the Pacific
Bangkok ; THAILAND
+662 288 1765
+662 288 3043
howardr@ilo.org
16
SWITZERLAND **
Full Name
Mr. Craig RUSSON
Resource Persons
:
Institution:
Position:
Address:
Tel. /
Mobile:
ILO HQ Geneva
Senior Evaluation Officer, EVAL
Geneva, Switzerland
+41 22 799 7310
Fax:
Web:
E-mail:
www.ilo.org
Full Name
Mr. Guillaume MERCIER
russon@ilo.org
ITALY
:
Institution:
Position:
Address:
Tel. /
Mobile:
International Training Centre of the ILO
Senior Programme Officer
Viale Maestri del Lavoro, 10, 10127 Turin, Italy
+39 011 693 6405
Fax:
Web:
E-mail:
+39011 693 6351
www.itcilo.org/sdg
G.Mercier@itcilo.org
Full Name
Ms. Carmelisa MAGLI
ITALY
:
Institution:
Position:
Address:
Tel. /
Mobile:
Fax:
Web:
E-mail:
International Training Centre of the ILO
Programme Secretary
Viale Maestri del Lavoro, 10, 10127, Turin, Italy
+39011 693 6532
+39011 693 6351
www.itcilo.org/sdg
C.Magli@itcilo.org
** duty station
Annex IV Timetable
Annex V – Evaluation questionnaire
Evaluation manager certification programme
A906415
Jul 01, 2013 Jul 03, 2013
Turin Centre
EVALUATION FORM
Please complete the questionnaire below. This will help us to improve our activities. Please be totally frank,
for we are interested in your opinion, whether it is positive or negative, and we shall take it into account in
planning future activities.
This questionnaire is anonymous.
Please give only one answer to each question.
Sex
Male
Female
Type of organization
Please indicate only one response. If you are involved in more than one type of organization, please select the one
you are representing during this activity.
Trade Union organization
Private enterprise
Ministries of Labour
Training/academic institution
Employer organization
International Labour Organization
Government/public institution
UN organization
Intergovernmental organization
Currently Unemployed
Non governmental organization
Other
1
Questions on the training activity
Please give each aspect set out below a mark from 1 to 5, with 1 being the minimum and 5 the maximum. On this
scale, the average is 3. If you think that a question does not apply to you, or that you do not have the information
needed to answer it, please leave it blank.
1
Before participating in this activity, did you have enough information to understand
whether it could meet your learning needs?
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
you say that the administrative support/secretariat was efficient?
10 Would
1=not at all; 2=not really; 3=to some extent; 4=yes; 5=absolutely
1
2
3
4
5
likely is it that you will apply some of what you have learned?
11 How
1=very unlikely; 2=unlikely; 3=not sure; 4=likely; 5=certain
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1=not at all; 2=not much; 3=to some extent; 4=yes; 5=yes, in detail
2
To what extent were the activity's objectives achieved?
3
Given the activity's objectives, how appropriate were the activity's contents?
4
Have gender issues been adequately integrated in the training?
5
Were the learning methods used generally appropriate?
6
How would you judge the resource persons' overall contribution?
7
Did the group of participants with whom you attended the activity contribute to
your learning?
1=not at all; 2=not really; 3=partly; 4=mostly; 5=fully
1=totally inappropriate; 2=not appropriate; 3=partially appropriate; 4=appropriate; 5=very appropriate
1=not at all; 2=not really; 3=partly; 4=mostly; 5=fully
1=totally inappropriate; 2=not appropriate; 3=partially appropriate; 4=appropriate; 5=very appropriate
1=truly disappointing; 2=rather unsatisfactory; 3=satisfactory; 4=good; 5=excellent
1=not at all; 2=not really; 3=to some extent; 4=yes; 5=yes, very much so
8
Were the materials used during the activity appropriate?
9
Would you say that the logistics of the activity were well organized?
1=not at all; 2=not really; 3=to some extent; 4=yes; 5=yes, very much so
1=not at all; 2=not really; 3=to some extent; 4=yes; 5=absolutely
How likely is it that your institution/employer will benefit from your participation in
12 the activity?
1=very unlikely; 2=unlikely; 3=not sure; 4=likely; 5=certain
you satisfied with the overall quality of the activity?
13 Are
1=not at all; 2=not really; 3=to some extent; 4=yes; 5=absolutely
14 How would you suggest the resource persons improve the overall quality of their contribution? (You may name
someone in particular if you wish.)
15 Do you have any observations or suggestions?
2
Questions on the services provided by the Centre
Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the services provided by the Centre by giving each aspect a score from
1 (very poor) to 5 (excellent). For services you did not use, please leave it blank.
16 Reception - Courtesy and friendliness
1
2
3
4
5
17 Reception - Problem solving attitude
1
2
3
4
5
18 Reception - Assistance during check-in and check-out
1
2
3
4
5
20 Accommodation and Room - The comfort in your room
1
2
3
4
5
21 Accommodation and Room - The cleaning of your room
1
2
3
4
5
22 Accommodation and Room - The standard equipment in room and bathroom
1
2
3
4
5
23 Accommodation and Room - Laundry/ironing service
1
2
3
4
5
25 Catering - Coffee lounge/canteen staff
1
2
3
4
5
26 Catering - The food for breakfast
1
2
3
4
5
27 Catering - The food for lunch
1
2
3
4
5
28 Catering - The food for supper
1
2
3
4
5
29 Catering - The food at weekends
1
2
3
4
5
30 Catering - The variety of food
1
2
3
4
5
31 Catering - Food and drinks provided for class coffee breaks
1
2
3
4
5
32 Catering - The coffee lounge
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
19 Reception - Comments on this service:
24 Accommodation and Room - Comments on this service:
33 Catering - Comments on this service:
34 Training Room - The comfort int he training room
3
35 Training Room - The standard equipment in training and conference rooms
Training Room - The cleanliness and appearance of training and conference
rooms
Other residential services - Organized leisure-time social activities (variety
37
and number)
36
38 Other residential services - The medical service
Other residential services - The Centre's travel unit (official travel
arrangements)
Other residential services - The "Jet Viaggi 3000" travel agency (private
40
travel arrangements)
41 Other residential services - Comments on these services:
39
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5