NTRS 2: Participant Evaluation Synopsis

Nonprofit Technology Roundtable Series
Navigating Technology Costs: Affording Technology Projects as Nonprofits and Service Providers
March 9, 2006
Participant Evaluation Synopsis

Eric Leland facilitated a group of 36 people; 6 were from CompuMentor. Nonprofits represented slightly less than half of the participants while vendors/service providers represented about a third.  There was one funder and one lawyer. Eighteen participants filled out the evaluation form.

Thirteen participants reported that their expectations were met.  Three respondents had their expectations met more or less.  And two plainly did not have their expectations met.  The majority of respondents felt the content was relevant to their needs with 60% rating it 8, 9 or 10.

Participants reported appreciating various aspects of the discussion.  Most (likely NPOs) were pleased with the ideas and resources around solving NPO tech issues.  Many (likely consultants) were reassured by the community of peers and use of like techniques.  Still others enjoyed the thought-provoking discussion and guidance.

Participants wanted more concrete information and/or skills, it seemed.  For example, resources to DIY, database 101, solutions, methodologies and strategy for specific needs.  Funding resources and TCO metrics were also of interest.

We received a resounding approval on the facilitation with 95% of respondents rating it 7, 8, 9, and 10.

People found the directed, open discussion, which enabled the exchange of different perspectives and thereby gave great insight to be most helpful.
End of discussion – investment in the tech processes we can make.

And here’s what folks found least helpful: the balance of consultants to NPOs was too consultant-heavy.  Some folks would have liked to have had the introductions at the beginning of the roundtable.  Some thought the points of pain got a little long as “people love to complain.”  A few wanted more time spent on “concrete resources, such as practical steps to particular solutions.”

Initial contact and subsequent reminders seemed to be more than adequate for all respondents. 

An impressive 15 folks said they’d be interested in attending future sessions.  One participant said “Maybe” and two respondents abstained from the question.

There were quite a few suggestions for future Roundtable discussions. 
Among them were:
•           Details of management information/analytical tools available.
•           Specific tech projects like one roundtable per topic: fundraising, accounting, HR, case flow, research, Website, finance
•           I would love to see something on jump-starting the stalled org – ie, the folks who haven’t “done tech” in years. Also, strategic tech planning.
•           Educating the nonprofit manager around technology.
•           Tools, realities, what works for getting through the MIS, data management to the knowledge and use.
•           Case studies of successful projects and collaborations.
•           Talking more about cultural issues.
It should be noted that in just under half of the surveys, questions 11 and 12 were blank.  Survey fatigue?

Three participants were interested in contributing to future roundtables.  Three were not and one said “Maybe.”

Finally, peoples’ comments:
•           Start with intros
•           None. Very well run.
•           I think I completely misunderstood the purpose of the meeting.  CompuMentor is good.  I should be more aware of why and what’s going on.
•           Thank you!
•           Really good stuff guys!!
•           Great roundtable.
•           I expected more representatives of nonprofits to come.  Is it that they need to feel on the cusp of deciding about tech help now in order to take the time to attend?  Many people came with colleagues or partners – I think that is good for sharing perspectives and maybe for getting collaborations going.
•           Lack of diversity.