2013 CAIDP Conference Evaluation Report...2013 CAIDP Conference Evaluation - ‐ 2 2013 CAIDP...

2013 CAIDP Conference Evaluation -‐ 1

2013 CAIDP Conference

Evaluation Report

January 2014


2013 CAIDP Conference – Evaluation Report By: Jean-‐Joseph Bellamy, January 2014

A short survey to evaluate the CAIDP conference held on April 17-‐18, 2013 was sent to all participants; including speakers at the conference. This questionnaire included 11 questions -‐ in both English and French -‐ with comment boxes to give additional feedback. 136 respondents were invited via e-‐invite using surveymonkey.com’s online survey tool and 3 reminders were sent to those who did not complete their questionnaire at the time when the reminders were sent. The response rate was relatively high with a total of 69 fully completed questionnaires representing a response rate of about 51%. I – Brief Evaluation Summary

For most respondents (62%) to the e-‐survey, it was not their first CAIDP conference to attend. They already participated to the 2011 and in some cases to the 2009 conferences. However, it was also positive to have new faces at the conference (38%). Participants are mostly from the Ottawa-‐Gatineau region (74%) but it was noted that ¼ of respondents (26%) were from outside the NCR. The majority of respondents are CAIDP members (65%). Highlights of this evaluation:

• About 93% of respondents ranked the overall conference event as either satisfactory (49%) or highly satisfactory (44%). No respondents ranked the conference either marginally unsatisfactory or unsatisfactory.

• About 52% of respondents heard about the CAIDP conference through the CAIDP Mailing List. Over 46% heard about the Conference mostly through other means: 4 (6%) said through DEVEX and none said through social media.

• Over 91% of respondents were either satisfactory (43%) or highly satisfactory (48%) with the way the information on the event prior to the conference itself was communicated

• Over 70% of respondents rated each session either good or excellent. A few exceptions were noted: o The Final Debate with Scott Gilmore and Ian Smilie stand out with over 72% of respondents

that rated the event excellent and a further 24% rated it good. o The 1b-‐GST session and the Guest Speaker: Paul Dewar were also highly rated with respectively

100% and 94% of respondents who rated these sessions as either excellent or good. o Around 40% of respondents rated the Keynote address by Louis Marcotte and session 2b-‐

Working with CIDA either poor or average. • Over 80% of respondents rated most aspects of the conference (value of the session, duration, panels

vs. keynotes, etc.) either high quality or generally good: o The lowest score was for the concurrent sessions where almost 24% of respondents rated it as

average and a further 14% not applicable. o 6% of respondents rated the opportunities to interact and network with fellow

attendees/presenters as of poor quality. • Over half of respondents (58%) selected the “Choice of sessions” as what they like MOST, followed by

“Time to interact with other attendees/speakers” (21% of respondents) and “Venue” (19%). • Over 1/3 of respondents (35%) selected the “Concurrent sessions” as what they like LEAST, followed by

“Time to interact with other attendees/speakers” (28% of respondents) and “None of the above” (26%). • About 1/3 of respondents (32%) selected the “Venue”, “Food” and “Other” as three areas where

improvements could be made to the conference experience.

Finally, the good news is that about 70% of respondents said that they will likely or highly likely participate to another CAIDP Conference in the future. A further 29% of respondents said that they may attend another CAIDP conference (marginally likely). No respondent said unlikely nor highly unlikely

2013 CAIDP Conference Evaluation -‐ 3 II – Profile of Respondents Several questions were asked to be able to profile the respondents:

• Was this the first CAIDP Conference that you have attended / Est ce que c'est la première conférence du RPCDI à laquelle vous avez participé?

• Are you from the Ottawa-‐Gatineau region / Etes vous de la région d'Ottawa-‐Gatineau? • Are you a Member of CAIDP / Êtes vous membre du RPCDI? • Select the language of your choice / Choisissez la langue de votre choix

The results indicate that for the majority of participants (n=43 – 62%), it was not their first CAIDP conference to attend. Many of the 43 respondents said that they also participated to the 2011 and in some cases to the 2009 conferences. However, it was also positive to have new faces at the conference; for 38% of respondents (n=26), it was their first participation to a CAIDP conference. Participants are mostly from the Ottawa-‐Gatineau region (n=51 – 74%) but there is still over ¼ of respondents (n=18 – 26%) that were from outside the region. As indicated on the graph beside, the majority of respondents are CAIDP members (n=45 = 65%) but there were still 24 respondents (35%) that are not CAIDP members1. Finally, 93% of respondents (n=64) selected English when answering the questionnaire and 7% selected French.

1 It is important to consider here that speakers were also invited to respond to the survey and that most of them are not CAIDP members; therefore, the result of non-‐members in the graph may not reflect the real percentage of non-‐members who participated to the conference.

2013 CAIDP Conference Evaluation -‐ 4 III – Detailed Results per Evaluation Question 1. Rank the overall CAIDP 2013 Conference

About 93% of respondents ranked the overall conference event as either satisfactory (49%) or highly satisfactory (44%). The rest ranked the conference either marginally satisfactory or “do not know”. No respondents ranked the conference either marginally unsatisfactory or unsatisfactory.

Comments Made:

• Glad you tackled both the practical areas (how to be a consultant) and current issues such as evaluation, management change, and the thorny issue of private sector and development.

• I have made many useful connections and met many interesting and knowledgeable consultants working in the field.

• Informative for all levels of development professionals, from junior to senior. • But I only attended part of day 2 as a speaker • The few sessions I was able to attend gave me what I wanted • As a young professional, I found some of the sessions to not be as directly relevant as others but that is

the nature of trying to diversify the kind of sessions. I also found that, although on the whole the session speakers and their presentations were satisfactory, I was often left wanting more specificity from them addressing the topic at hand. At times, I found there would be tangents or their presentations were just general overviews with not much substance.

• The conference had some good speakers, covered some relevant topics, but offered little opportunity for networking, information exchange, and learning from one-‐another.

• The conference addressed a number of themes that are top of mind at the moment -‐ e.g. development and the extractive industry, merger of CIDA and DFAIT, public-‐private partnerships, CIDA's evaluation approach and agenda.

• I think CAIDP (and the conference) has become more professional during the past 4 years -‐ nice to see. • The conference was very satisfactory and timely due to the changes happening within CIDA and the

international community in general, but due to the time allotted for each plenary speaker, there was little room/opportunity for in depth discussions.

• Speakers were good but logistics were fairly poor. • Once in awhile there were two sessions in the same time slot that I wanted to attend and vice versa, but

you can't please everyone. But there are some topics that are more appealing to independent or new consultant and some to the experience -‐ big firm types.

• The whole event was well organized, the venue was excellent, topics were relevant and timely and speakers and session chairs were strong or very strong

• Very well organized with good panellists


• Good sessions, great for networking, good for getting updates., • I was only able to attend 3/4 of day 1 -‐ and got value from it. • Enjoyed learning more about CAIDP and international development work, meeting members, and

presenting at the conference • The sessions were for the most part very interesting, had good presenters and were relevant to current

interests and issues. A better selection of topics than the previous conferences. We need to keep improving/raising the level in the same way for future conferences.

• Though the occasional session was not great, many were excellent & the conference offered a great opportunity to talk with colleagues about the many current issues in development these days.

• Very good networking opportunity, and discussions of the latest trends. • Pertinent speakers, panels and overall agenda. Smoothly run, barring some technical complications the

first day. At times though, it felt like there was not enough time between panels to chat and reflect on the experience with others (in the moment, rather than later at coffee breaks or at the end of the day).

• Good balance of presenters. Some helpful presentation topics, specifically on the question of partnerships and the role of private sector actors.

• Relevant and varied sessions, great headline speakers • Great networking, interesting sessions, well organized, good location, affordable • Volunteers could have been more alert to handling microphone during sessions instead of gossiping out

front. Signs were not up for opening reception. Some program descriptions did not match what presenters talked about.

• About 50% of the sessions were strong and interesting • Interesting speakers -‐ quite energized compared to 2011 • C'est le seul événement du genre en développement international au Canada qui réunit toutes les

''communautés''. Ce fait à lui seul justifie la tenue de la conférence car en y participant on se rend compte qu'il y a encore de la vie et du dynamisme dans le secteur.

• Il y aurait lieu d'identifier les représentants d'organisations parmi les participants par rapport aux consultants indépendants

2. How did you hear about the CAIDP Conference?

About 52% of respondents heard about the CAIDP conference through the CAIDP Mailing List. The rest (over 46%) is mostly through other means (see below in comments), i.e. not the mailing list, not Twitter and not Facebook. Note in the comments that 4 (6%) said through DEVEX. Comments Made:

• Devex • Colleague • DEVEX networking invitation • Email • A friend told me about it • President • Development drinks


• My school • Colleagues and associates in international development • On board executive! • Internally at my organization • Board • Via colleagues in development community • Board • I was contacted to be a panel chair. • CAIDP contacted CANADEM to inquire about our interest in being involved. • Invited to present on panel. • Invited to speak • Contacted by CAIDP to provide speakers • Devex Happy Hour Email • Carleton University events web page • Board • Online news or link • Through your institutional website. • Radio • Devex mailing • CAIDP Board member. • Colleagues • Information transmise par quelqu'un qui était déjà membre du RPCDI • par l`entremise d`une collegue

3. How well did CAIDP communicate information on the Conference? Regarding the communication of information on the event prior to the conference itself, over 91% of respondents were either satisfactory (43%) or highly satisfactory (48%). Comments Made:

• Good organisation by Allie • Was difficult to find the new

acronym while googling • I appreciated the frequent

updates on changes to the speakers, etc.

• Quick response times, informed volunteers at conference, good advance information on program, travel and accommodations.

• Lots of notices, would have been good to be able to nail program earlier

• Driving directions focused on parking only. The itinerary should have included captions for each session. Room numbering was confusing in the beginning and not well communicated.


• Weekly updates from early in the planning were very helpful • Nicole an exceptional communicator • Excellent updates by Nicole. • It would have been good to know that essentially breakfast was available at the early coffee time. • The email updates were very useful. • It was nice to have updates on who would be speaking. • It was difficult to find

information on the conference after I heard about it on the radio.

• Descriptions of the sessions were not available until very late limiting ability to make choices.

• Détails logistiques transmis un peu à la dernière minute

4. Rate the sessions and events you participated in at the Conference?

The diagram beside gives the distribution of ratings for each event. Overall, for most sessions over 70% of respondents rated each session either good or excellent. However, a few exceptions were noted: • The Final Debate with Scott

Gilmore and Ian Smilie stand out with over 72% of respondents that rated the event excellent and a further 24% rated it good.

• The 1b-‐GST session and the Guest Speaker: Paul Dewar were also highly rated with respectively 100% and 94% of respondents who rated these sessions as either excellent or good.

• Around 40% of respondents rated the Keynote address by Louis Marcotte and session 2b-‐Working with CIDA either poor or average.

2013 CAIDP Conference Evaluation -‐ 8 Comments Made:

• It would have been interesting to have more participation from NPSIA, particularly given the venue. • Excellent venue and good participation • Events focusing on the private sector, and specifically CSR, were of particular interest to me and the

speakers were well selected by CAIDP. • All well selected topics and speakers. As always with concurrent sessions one has to make difficult

choices. • I missed the presentation by Caroline Leclerc unfortunately. • It was good to see strong representation from government among the speakers; also their openness to

discuss specific questions. In addition to the above, I thought that Dr. Runte's opening comments were both relevant and stimulating.

• Julia Sanchez was not a good moderator: she was partial (against Gilmore), gave more time to Smillie and seemed slightly ageist (stressing the youth and therefore inexperience of Gilmore).

• I thought the sessions were well planned and delivered. It was a real pity that the attendance was so low. I would have liked more emphasis on development issues as opposed to marketing but I assume that I am in the minority.

• There is a good opportunity for members to use quality management systems and for qualified members to consult on the same topic to international clients. Potentially a unique selling feature for CAIDP.

• "Working with CIDA"-‐-‐need to keep on top of current issues, as we did with Donovan and Leclerc. Mark L, not so much, from feedback I got from others.

• There were ongoing microphone problems, almost in every session (did not work, etc.). It was hard to see Caroline Leclerc sitting down.

• New trends -‐ the presenters felt a bit rushed given the 10-‐minute window. • Would have attended at twice the price • I was unable to attend most of day 1 due to other commitments The final debate was fantastic and

worth the price of admission in itself 5. Rate the following aspects of the Conference? The diagram indicates that for most aspects of the conference over 80% of respondents rated them either high quality or generally good. It was noted that the lowest score was for the concurrent sessions where almost 24% of respondents rated it as average and a further 14% not applicable. It was also noted that 6% of respondents rated the opportunities to interact and network with fellow attendees/presenters as of poor quality.

2013 CAIDP Conference Evaluation -‐ 9 Comments Made:

• I was conflicted in that it was hard to choose between two very different but valuable topics for the sessions, e.g. the big private sector and mining debate vs. practical advice on being a consultant. The two CIDA speakers were a dead loss, though. Can't think where in the agency at present to find the quality that would befit next year's conference!

• Food was poor/ monotonous. But maybe there is a restriction on catering at the venue? Why not ethnic food at an international development conference? Also veggie options were lacking. How about catering to people with food allergies, etc.?

• Thought that the reception was too crowded. • I found the sessions to be on the short side and often was being cajoled by the volunteers to clear out

and proceed to the next session. • Good pairing of concurrent sessions; each concurrent event seemed to appeal to a different audience

than the other. A weekend conference would have been preferable to avoid missing 2 days of work. A portion of the networking time could have been more formally organized to encourage new interactions.

• My preference would be to have consecutive rather than concurrent sessions but I understand that different people have different interests that don't overlap so much. This evaluation should clarify whether a majority prefer one or the other format.

• Need to keep number of panellists down a bit. • The length of the conference and time of the week was ideal. There were times when I would have

preferred to attend both of the sessions which were occurring concurrently so missed out on some interesting presentations. I would suggest running certain sessions within one time slot only which conference organizers feel would have a great interest to all, and if some people are not interested they can use the time to work or network.

• Very modest facilities for information tables that agencies or firms might want to use; actually unclear if that was encouraged. What about space for impromptu discussion sessions by participants, either for follow-‐up or new topics?

• Some sessions started at or went on longer than scheduled which had an impact on the amount of time for networking and the need to move quickly from one session to another. Perhaps fewer but longer sessions might be appropriate in some cases. Concurrent or plenary sessions? It's always a trade-‐off: you want to cover as many topics as could be relevant but inevitably some people feel that they are missing something.

• Ottawa's universities great locations for such national events • Need more women presenters. Better gender balance. • Would have enjoyed a structured networking session that allowed greater interaction with CAIDP

members. • There was not enough time to talk with other attendees at the conference -‐-‐ we were often being

herded back into sessions. In particular, I thought the Devex function on Wednesday night didn't work well for a number of reasons. It was a long way off-‐site, which meant many people were lost, i.e., they didn't come/didn't make the transition. Had it been held at the same location as the conference, I think you'd have seen many conversations which flowed out of the sessions continue into the networking session and many people stay at least for part of it. Also the restaurant where the session was held was extremely crowded and difficult to move around in. This, combined with the fact that there were many people there who hadn't been at the conference (thus diluting the mix), made it difficult to have meaningful conversations.

• As I'm sure you've heard -‐ the audio system didn't work very well. • Timing was a constant problem -‐ chairs did not moderate, speakers went on for too long, not enough

time for Q&A.


• Concurrent sessions worked very well for me and allowed me to attend those that were pertinent to my work. They were balanced well against one another.

• Unfortunately I missed most of the first day arriving only at 3:00 pm • Networking between. Small size fostered networking

6. What did you like MOST about the CAIDP Conference? Considering that it was not a mandatory question, only 50 respondents responded to this question. Over half of respondents (58%) selected the “Choice of sessions” as what they like MOST, followed by “Time to interact with other attendees/speakers” (21% of respondents) and “Venue” (19%). The graph beside shows the distribution of responses. Some of the comments made as to what they liked MOST are presented below. Comments Made:

Concurrent sessions (cannot participate to all) • Good choice • No problem, variety/choice was good • Post-‐conference availability of recordings will largely compensate • Seemed generally well balanced • Good, as long as the sessions are different enough to attract different crowds. • Yes. Good to have choice • But allows more variety over short period of time, critical for busy consultants. • I liked that there was a wide variety of sessions

Choice of sessions • Sessions Salle A • Very useful topics • There was something for all needs • Good variety and choice • Good selection of sessions on varying topics ensured there was something of interest to all participants

during most timeslots. • Always look for relevance, so far interesting options were available • Excellent range that addressed most current concerns • This year's selection of session was excellent and hitting on important point for consultants to be

updated on. • Good balance, though the really interesting bit is what will happen to the profession during the next 5

years • Session topics were of interest to me • Generally timely and relevant -‐ a good combination of 'how to' and broader issues • Super choice • They were pretty informative • The choice was very good. Sessions covered a broad range of subjects. • It was nice to have a variety of sessions catering to different interests • Good variety, with most linked to the changing landscape theme.


• All the sessions I attended were timely and useful. There was a wide variety to choose from that captured emerging trends well. The speakers were almost all very appropriate and engaging.

• Opportunity to meet and learn about Devex • Excellent. • Choix équilibré de sujets intéressants

Length of sessions • Just right for keeping alert and engaged • Just right • Good-‐-‐enough to inform and point to sources for additional info • Probably a good compromise. • Good introductions to important topics allowing additional research

Time to interact with other attendees/speakers • Good, however could be even more • Good opportunity for networking • Enough time for interaction at lunch and between sessions • Too short • Good and well spaced • Could have had more • Networking is a valuable aspect. Devex happy hour was excellent. • Generally good • Very good • The conference provided a nice atmosphere and it was easy to chat with people. • It allows for shared best practices and views • Excellent networking opportunity • Some good coffee breaks, etc. built in. • Before during and after • Good amount of time morning, breaks, afterwards to network • Not enough.

Venue • Very good • Very nice venue • Could have selected a more central location although I understand given the sponsorship arrangement

and cost considerations • Nice venue for interaction AV needed help though • Great • Excellent -‐ light, air quality, accessibility • Fine except for the sound system cost and lack of supervision • Location and space excellent • Excellent -‐ lots of space for mingling, great view, good-‐sized meeting rooms • Ottawa's universities very convenient & inexpensive for such national gatherings • Very good • It was accessible and easy to find • Very good • Excellent • This was good. Beautiful view of raging spring Rideau River. • Nice venue. • Lovely, long way from downtown but good bus connections. • Conducive to better discussions

2013 CAIDP Conference Evaluation -‐ 12 Length and time

• Good • More time to have sessions not run parallel • Just right • Just fine • Could have gone longer into the afternoon on the second day • Good • I think in some sessions there was not enough time • Good • Two days good. Could have publicized Tuesday evening better. • Yes • Great networking • Good.

None of the above • Really liked the Devex networking event. • The quality of the speakers -‐ very high level and impressive

7. What did you like LEAST about the CAIDP Conference? Same as question 6, it was not a mandatory question, only 43 respondents responded to this question. Over 1/3 of respondents (35%) selected the “Concurrent sessions” as what they like LEAST, followed by “Time to interact with other attendees/speakers” (28% of respondents) and “None of the above” (26%). The graph beside shows the distribution of responses. Some of the comments made as to what they liked LEAST are presented below. Comments Made:

Concurrent sessions (cannot participate to all) • Hard to make the choice and miss out on some valuable info/advice • Sometimes interested in attending two sessions that were operating at same time; normally would

follow up with speaker of session I was unable to attend, but there was little opportunity for this. • As noted above, my preference would be for consecutive rather than concurrent sessions. Makes me

feel I missed some potentially important topics • I could not participate in all of the sessions that I wanted to • Difficult to select • Always a problem • There was no time planned to go from one to the next; led to delays in program • Inability to attend concurrent sessions • A couple of times would like to have attended both. Glad they were recorded.

Choice of sessions • Working with CIDA -‐ an important choice of topic but the session was a bit obtuse


• Some sessions did not cover what the topic was so there may be a need cor chairs to be more hands on prior to the sessions.

• I would have liked more updating on development issues. • Some sessions were more interesting and relevant than others. Coming from the NGO sector I do

understand, but there could be additional session targeted more for international development professionals working in the NGOs sector.

• Some of the speakers were below expectations Length of sessions

• Too short • Sessions needed more presentation time. Panels were too packed. • Too short some times • More time for questions, especially with CIDA reps • Not enough Q&A time.

Time to interact with other attendees/speakers • This was limited. It would be good to link people up by area of interest (i.e. health, education, climate

change, governance, agriculture, etc.) so as to meet others with similar interests/expertise and explore potential partnerships

• A portion of the networking time could have been more formally organized to encourage new interactions.

• Pretty typical of conferences • Not enough time • It was awkward for those who were students and hard sometime to start a conversation with such top

officials • More time for networking in between the sessions would have been better. • There’s never enough time for interaction even with breaks • Not enough time to interact with others at the conference. • Need more time at end of each session; it was too rushed. Also, I would have liked to chat with other

participants during lunch; but both lunches were packed with speakers I didn't even get time to introduce myself the people I was sitting next to!

• One of the lunches could have been dedicated to networking, there was no time during the meals to network

• More time with speakers needed -‐ they often left right after Venue

• Un détail, vraiment: acoustique pas toujours idéale, surtout dans la salle B • Temperature and sound were issues. • The panels should have been raised, it was very hard to see the people who were speaking.

Length and time • Hard to get away from work (and costly)

None of the above • Thought all was fine • Logistics; name tags, itinerary, food, general organization • Little to complain about; even quite good weather? • The conference was definitely geared towards consultants rather than anyone else. But that's your

organizations mandate and I still found the conference interesting and useful.

2013 CAIDP Conference Evaluation -‐ 14 8. How could CAIDP improve your Conference experience? Same as question 6 & 7, it was not a mandatory question, only 37 respondents responded to this question. About 1/3 of respondents (32%) selected the “Venue”, “Food” and “Other” as three areas where improvements could be made to the conference experience. The graph beside shows the distribution of responses. Some of the comments made as to what CAIDP could do to improve the conference experience are presented below. Comments Made:

Venue • A more central location • Should also considering holding in partnership with the University of Ottawa, where there is an actual

International Development program (Undergraduate, Masters, and PhD level). This could draw out more students as well.

• Having a room or table set up with computers to check email, etc. • Found PPTs in the larger room to be sometimes blocked by presenters-‐-‐would be nice to have a raised

screen • Audio technology, instructions about using microphones for questions • Beware of the space / temperature / comfort of attendees • The air conditioning was on during the event, making the rooms unbearably cold if you were sitting

underneath the vent. • No change • Better acoustics in open area -‐ too much feedback in some of the other sessions

Food • You could improve variety of food provided each day, instead of having sandwiches every day • A variety in the food options; some hot food instead of just sandwiches/wraps • Tea was terrible. Tasted like coffee. Possibly brewed using coffee brewer?? • Unremarkable but lovely to be hosted. • Lunch choices were better the second day. • Should have more vegetarian options; more environmentally friendly (e.g. encourage participants to

bring own water containers and coffee mugs to fill -‐ rather than hand out plastic water bottles). • Add in plain water as was done second day -‐ much better for the environment! • Fournir des bouteilles d'eau -‐ indispensable

Price • Reasonably priced, well done • Reasonable by today's standards but at upper threshold for me. • No change

Time of the week • Week-‐end better and probably more relaxed • Weekend preferred


• No change Choice of sessions

• Continue with support re tools such as management practices and evaluation • Additional session targeting NGOs

Speakers • Those speakers having direct practical experience are the most valuable • More meaningful speakers to the subject of development • More focused presentation would be beneficial. • Prep speakers a little more to focus the sessions well • Line up good speakers well ahead, eg. Ben Chalmers, a must!

Format • Less forced choice in terms of concurrent sessions/Discussion of • Concurrent sessions may not be the best choice • More innovative formats would be welcome. • It would have been good to have a couple of more interactive/workshop style sessions. • Better moderation of Q&A. We had a few ramblers who wanted to prove how smart they were.

Other • More networking and sharing of work and experiences -‐ poster sessions of sorts... • Hotel nearer the venue • Booklets could have included session explanations. Name tags should have included organization name.

Should have a computer/printer available to print new nametags if needed. • Try to negotiate a special conference parking fee/area with the university • Need to reach out to next generation; e.g. IDS students from across Canada • Parking costs • Structured networking session • In the interaction sessions, maybe a more social activity that could make it easy to interact or break the

ice especially for students • Better audio system • A panel on the topic of NGOs/Civil Society would have been very interesting given their changing role in

the Canadian development landscape. This was touched on in a number of other panels, but never explicitly addressed.

• Au moins un atelier en français, peut-‐être? 9. What other topics would you like to see at the next CAIDP Conference? 29 respondents provided some input on other topics that they would like to see at the next CAIDP Conference. These comments are presented below. Comments Made:

• Perhaps more emphasis on aid effectiveness, Paris Declaration, MDGs and include members who have recent experience (the way that Diana R., Elizabeth McA. & Deborah McW. did) to share what they have learned

• More valuable networking opportunities and job sharing between junior and senior consultants • Practical sessions on marketing to international agencies; skills development • NGO-‐consulting companies -‐ how can we work together better? • How to be recognized by other than ODA agencies as valuable contributors to what you do as a business

or service agency


• A more concerted effort and sessions geared towards young professionals and focusing on tools, resources and opportunities for them to make inroads into the field of international development

• Fewer sessions. More in-‐depth discussions. • More on the role of the private sector in development. • Project Management Tools for ID Projects • Evaluation: Trends in evaluating cost effectiveness, value for money Evaluation: Benchmarks for

efficiency ratings Evaluation: Comparison of methodologies for program evaluation One year retrospective on the DFAIT-‐CIDA merger

• The success of this year's agenda was that the topics were current to the changing climate. That may be a more important factor than having a specific topic covered.

• The profession must adapt or die (i.e., become increasingly irrelevant). What next? • Attention to regional international funding agencies especially Asia Development Bank and how to get

contracts with them • Post-‐2015; financial crisis • More concrete talk to work with the UN system • Training workshops • Advocacy for international development cooperation with the Canadian population • A bit of a follow up or avenues to bridge the younger generation to volunteer or internship

opportunities. • Mining for Development • Devote a half day or so specifically to more detailed sessions on marketing and growth opportunities? • My understanding is that other countries are adding the involvement of the private sector to other

methods of doing development (unlike Canada, which seems to be replacing one with the other). It would be good to learn more about how other donor countries are doing this. It would also have been good to learn more about what's going on with the three current partnerships of WUSC, Plan Canada and World Vision Canada with private sector mining companies -‐-‐ i.e., what's working and what isn't working with these projects. Mind you, with the current climate, fear of consequences from the Harper govt. would probably have prevented the NGOs from speaking freely.

• See above. This could even be geared to the consultant crowd -‐ by talking about the unique challenges when working with NGO/CSOs.

• It would be interesting to have a workshop attached to the conference so that CAIDP is also supporting the generation of knowledge and specialization of its members. It leads to more professional quality consultants.

• Ask me closer to next year's conference • Would need to think about it. • Next year it would be useful to delve into the issues around working with blended public/private sector

projects. Also there is a growing need to find pathways to bring in young/new consultants • More topics of interest to NGOs who are thinking about getting their hands dirty by working with the

private sector. • Peut-‐être plus de sujets de fond.

2013 CAIDP Conference Evaluation -‐ 17 10. How likely are you to attend another CAIDP Conference? About 70% of respondents said that they will likely or highly likely participate to another CAIDP Conference in the future. A further 29% of respondents said that they might attend another CAIDP conference (marginally likely). No respondent said unlikely or highly unlikely. Comments Made:

• Depends on what happens in the business -‐ we are all hanging on

• I am pleased with the experience and the contacts made; looking forward to next conference

• So much depends on work • If close to Ottawa! • Why a trade commissioner

as keynote speaker? It seems out of keeping with CAIDP's mandate.

• I would have said highly likely but given the current difficulty in finding work in international development, I'm thinking about getting out of the field. If I'm still in it at the time of the next conference, I'll definitely be there.

• Less likely because I am retiring. • Depends on the time and place -‐ and whether or not I am in Canada! • I was really impressed with this one so based on level of satisfaction, I will try again next year • Should be annual. • Il faut absolument continuer, ne serait-‐ce que pour la poussée d'adrénaline que procure la conférence.

L'isolement menace le secteur du DI au Canada, vu l'hostilité perçue de gouvernement actuel, et la conférence permet de ''continuer le combat''.

11. Other comments about the CAIDP Conference? 25 respondents provided other comments about the CAIDP Conference. These comments are presented below. Comments Made:

• Could you please share the Power Point presentations with us? They were really useful. • An excellent conference really enjoyed it. Keep up the good work! Please provide an opportunity for

young people to be matched up with older consultants for job shadowing. • The Conference attracted an interesting group of DPs. • My thanks to all those who keep the fires burning • Congratulations to the organizers • Thanks for the great conference! Keep up the hard work! • Congratulations to all involved for a well-‐planned and executed conference


• The organizers did a great job! • Thanks again to all the organisers and volunteers. • Nicole did an excellent job in organizing the conference -‐ thorough, pleasant to deal with,

knowledgeable. • Hope CAIDP & CASID can talk/collaborate/co-‐organise before end decade! • Bravo! • Richard Beattie was very good. The conference seemed to run smoothly. • Excellent choice of speakers • Great job for pulling the conference all together. It was a great conference overall. • It was enjoyable, great to meet others in ID and discuss relevant topics. • I was surprised at the lack of challenge to some of the speakers (Session 4a, Private Sector & Scott

Gilmore) who at times were a little condescending to attendees, essentially implying that we were stuck in the past & discounting the learning that have been made in the last couple of decades of doing international development. Replacing what we think of, as sustainable development with large infrastructure resource extraction projects and trickle down economics is a highly debatable direction to be taking.

• Excellent organization and execution. Congratulations on a job well done. • Timing was a problem -‐ and the conference organizers were very keen on moving things along. However,

this almost became rude at one point. A session had just ended and I (along with a number of other participants) wanted to chat and network with the speaker; but a conference organizer/volunteer very firmly (rudely) told us to move on. I lost my chance to connect with the speaker, who left the conference before I could connect later in the day. While the lunch was important -‐ to me, networking is more important than listening to a speaker with a mediocre message. Next year you should build more time into networking after each session, or have the chairs keep a closer eye on timing.

• Thank you for the time and effort put into running the conference and finding speakers. The very reasonable student price was greatly appreciated.

• Liked to way young people could participate. More of that? • Thanks for all the hard work that obviously went into this -‐ it showed! • Canvas for volunteers to help organize and run the conference. include me. • Il faut absolument continuer, ne serait-‐ce que pour la poussée d'adrénaline que procure la conférence.

L'isolement menace le secteur du DI au Canada, vu l'hostilité perçue de gouvernement actuel, et la conférence permet de ''continuer le combat'' pour les gens qui croient au développement

• Avez-‐vous remarqué l'erreur d'impression à la première page du programme français (deux pages interverties)? Auriez-‐vous accepté de publier le programme si la même erreur avait été du côté anglais? Poser la question, c'est y répondre, n'est-‐ce pas?

2013 CAIDP Conference Evaluation -‐ 19 Annex 1: Questionnaire in both EN and FR

2013 CAIDP Conference Evaluation Report...2013 CAIDP Conference Evaluation - ‐ 2 2013 CAIDP...

Documents

Transcript of 2013 CAIDP Conference Evaluation Report...2013 CAIDP Conference Evaluation - ‐ 2 2013 CAIDP...