7th
Annual Hong Kong Innovative Users Group Meeting
Results of Programme Evaluation
|
| |
| 1. Programme organization |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
 |
16 |
40% |
 |
 |
23 |
57% |
 |
 |
1 |
3% |
 |
 |
0 |
0% |
 |
 |
0 |
0% |
 |
| Total Number of Responses: 40
|
| 2. Programme publicity |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
11 |
28% |
|
|
24 |
60% |
|
|
4 |
10% |
|
|
1 |
3% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 40
|
| 3. Days for the programme |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
 |
9 |
23% |
|
 |
6 |
15% |
|
 |
24 |
60% |
|
 |
0 |
0% |
|
 |
1 |
3% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 40
|
| 4. Time for presentations by individual libraries
|
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
5 |
13% |
|
|
13 |
33% |
|
|
21 |
53% |
|
|
1 |
3% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 40
|
| 5. Time for presentations by III |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
6 |
17% |
|
|
11 |
31% |
|
|
16 |
44% |
|
|
3 |
8% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 36
|
| 6. Time for group discussions |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
4 |
12% |
|
|
5 |
15% |
|
|
16 |
47% |
|
|
6 |
18% |
|
|
3 |
9% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 34
|
| 7. Presentations by individual libraries
|
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
8 |
21% |
|
|
20 |
51% |
|
|
10 |
26% |
|
|
1 |
3% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 39
|
| 8. Presentations by III |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
3 |
8% |
|
|
14 |
39% |
|
|
17 |
47% |
|
|
1 |
3% |
|
|
1 |
3% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 36
|
| 9. Group discussions |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
4 |
11% |
|
|
11 |
31% |
|
|
13 |
37% |
|
|
5 |
14% |
|
|
2 |
6% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 35
|
| 10. Registration |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
22 |
55% |
|
|
13 |
33% |
|
|
3 |
8% |
|
|
2 |
5% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 40
|
| 11. Venue facilities |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
22 |
55% |
|
|
14 |
35% |
|
|
4 |
10% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 40
|
| 12. Conference lunch |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
14 |
38% |
|
|
17 |
46% |
|
|
5 |
14% |
|
|
1 |
3% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 37
|
| 13. Refreshments |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
15 |
38% |
|
|
16 |
40% |
|
|
8 |
20% |
|
|
1 |
3% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
|
Total Number of Responses:
40
|
Comments
on group discussions
- Involve
participants into discussion
- Time
is not sufficient to present and solve problems on both Acquisition
and Serials module. Some problems presented by some of the library
can be solved but time is only sufficient to list the problems
out. There is almost no time for information exchange. It is
recommended to split these two modules into two iscussion groups.
- Prefer
to have question concerning various group to be made know to
participants beforehand - not nice to just sit around and listen
to the panels talking.
- Not
useful without Innovative staff to answer the questions.
General comments and suggestions for improvement
- It
may be better to cut the meeting to one day or one and a half
day.
- The
projector seems not sharp enough.
- A
bi-annual meeting instead of annual.
- The
topic of keynote speaker was not relevant to Innovative User
Group meeting.
- Paticipation
in this meeting is a very worthwhile experience. I gained a
lot of knowledge from listening to the presentations. Altho
I wish that the time for discussion was prolonged a bit. Thank
you for inviting us.
|