In March 2009 an appreciation survey was conducted among the participants to the two forums and what follows is a synthesis of the main results of the survey. The Secretariat wishes to thank all the participants to the survey for their helpful cooperation.
*Note: The
Ranking is calculated on the basis of an arbitrary scale as follows: Poor (0-25%), Fair (25-50%), Good (50-75%) and Very Good (75-100%).
Total number of respondents: 50 (17% of the forums' participants)
Access to the online event(s):
| 1. Which online event did you participate in? |
Respondents |
% |
| - On line Forum on Capacity Building / Conference on Risk Assessment |
17 |
34% |
| - On line Forum on Capacity Building / Conference on Biosafety Mainstreaming |
10 |
20% |
| - Open-ended Online Expert Forum on Risk Assessment and Risk Management / Discussion groups |
20 |
40% |
| - Open-ended Online Expert Forum on Risk Assessment and Risk Management / Real-time Conference |
34 |
68% |
| |
| 2. How would you rate the information you received prior to the on line event(s) you participated in? |
Respondents |
Ranking* |
| - Very good |
22 |
| - Good |
24 |
Good |
| - Fair |
2 |
(73%) |
| - Poor |
0 |
| |
| 3. Did you experience any problem(s) in the registration process? |
Respondents |
% |
| - Yes |
15 |
30% |
| - No |
35 |
70% |
| |
| 4. If yes, which problem(s)? |
| Main problems indicated included: Poor internet connectivity - Password problems - Lack of clear indications on the website - Multiple BCH accounts - Difficulties in filling the Expert form requested by MOP. |
Discussion groups:
| 5. How would you rate the following: |
Respondents |
Ranking* |
| a. The usefulness of the ‘Introduction’ to each topic? |
| - Very good |
14 |
| - Good |
25 |
Good |
| - Fair |
3 |
(69%) |
| - Poor |
0 |
| |
| b. The usefulness of the ‘Questions’ or the ‘Suggested points for discussion’? |
| - Very good |
15 |
| - Good |
22 |
Good |
| - Fair |
5 |
(68%) |
| - Poor |
0 |
| |
| c. The usefulness of the ‘Selected readings’? |
| - Very good |
8 |
| - Good |
25 |
Good |
| - Fair |
6 |
(64%) |
| - Poor |
0 |
| |
| d. The ease of accessing the different topics in the discussion groups? |
| - Very good |
14 |
| - Good |
24 |
Good |
| - Fair |
1 |
(71%) |
| - Poor |
0 |
| |
| e. The ease of accessing the different topics in the discussion groups? |
| - Very good |
10 |
| - Good |
28 |
Good |
| - Fair |
2 |
(66%) |
| - Poor |
1 |
| |
| f. The ease of creating new threads in the discussion groups? |
| - Very good |
9 |
| - Good |
23 |
Good |
| - Fair |
5 |
(64%) |
| - Poor |
1 |
| |
| g. The ease of replying to the postings of other participants in the discussion groups? |
| - Very good |
14 |
| - Good |
21 |
Good |
| - Fair |
5 |
(67%) |
| - Poor |
1 |
| |
| h. The overall user-friendliness of the online discussion groups? |
| - Very good |
12 |
| - Good |
24 |
Good |
| - Fair |
2 |
(68%) |
| - Poor |
1 |
| |
| 6. Did you prefer reading and/or submitting postings through the Web or via email? |
Respondents |
% |
| - Web |
28 |
64% |
| - E-mail |
16 |
36% |
Real-time Conferences
| 7. Did you experience any problems accessing the real-time online conference? |
Respondents |
% |
| - Yes |
9 |
23% |
| - No |
30 |
77% |
| |
| 8. If yes, could you please provide the following information? |
Respondents |
% |
| |
| a. Which operating system were you using? |
| - Vista |
4 |
15% |
| - Windows XP |
17 |
65% |
| - Windows NT |
1 |
4% |
| - Other Windows OS |
0 |
- |
| - Mac OS X |
4 |
15% |
| - Unix / Linux |
0 |
- |
| - Other |
0 |
- |
| |
| b. Which Internet browser were you using? |
| - Internet Explorer |
14 |
45% |
| - Mozilla / Firefox |
12 |
39% |
| - Apple Safari |
2 |
6% |
| - Google Chrome |
2 |
6% |
| - Other |
1 |
3% |
| |
| c. Was Silverlight already installed on your computer? |
| - Yes |
13 |
39% |
| - No |
16 |
48% |
| - I don’t know |
4 |
12% |
| |
| d. Please provide the details of the problem you experienced. |
| Main problems indicated included: Poor network, internet connectivity or technical problems on the client side - Password problems - Silverlight installation - Different time zones. |
| |
| 9. How would you rate the following: |
Respondents |
Ranking* |
| |
| a. The ease of reading the interventions of other participants in the real-time conference? |
| - Very good |
20 |
| - Good |
16 |
Good |
| - Fair |
3 |
(73%) |
| - Poor |
0 |
| |
| b. The ease of posting your interventions in the real-time conference? |
| - Very good |
18 |
| - Good |
13 |
Good |
| - Fair |
4 |
(69%)
|
| - Poor |
2 |
| |
| c. The overall user-friendliness of the real-time conference platform? |
| - Very good |
20 |
| - Good |
15 |
Good |
| - Fair |
3 |
(74%) |
| - Poor |
0 |
| |
| 10. Did you use the ‘Help Desk’? |
Respondents |
% |
| - Yes |
8 |
20% |
| - No |
32 |
80% |
| |
| 11. If yes, how would you rate the ‘Help Desk’ function? |
Respondents |
Ranking* |
| - Very good |
4 |
| - Good |
5 |
Good |
| - Fair |
0 |
(74%) |
| - Poor |
0 |
Additional comments
Main additional comments included: Praises for the ease of using the system - Praises for the useful opportunity offered by the events - Complaints about difficulties in the registration process - Requests for extending the period of online discussions - Requests for similar events in the future - Considerations about the time needed for preparing to the online events - Suggestions for more focused topics in future conferences - Requests for more guidance (questions) in future similar events - Requests for technical guidance in the use of the real-time platform - Requests for making the real-time platform available to national and regional biosafety needs.
