eGovernment for Development

Training

Training Workshop Content

Part 1: Introduction to eTransparency

[c.10 mins]

1. Read out the workshop aim, objectives and structure. [ TRAINER ]
2. Explain that e-transparency is part of e-government. [ TRAINER ]

Other Possible Activities:

• If trainees may be unsure what e-government is, read out an e-government definition: see eGovernment Definition page (note broad definition). Then get the group to discuss or debate definition of e-government. [ TRAINER amp; GROUP ]

Part 1a: What are transparency, accountability and e-transparency?

[c.45 mins]

1. Get trainees to read through the Transparency Definitions page. [ TRAINEES ]
2. In pairs, small groups or plenary, get trainees to give examples from their own experience of projects that have involved 'transparency', 'accountability', and 'e-transparency'. Get trainees to explain their own understanding of these terms. [ GROUP ]
3. In pairs, small groups or plenary, get trainees to explain how they think that each of the activities 'transparency', 'accountability', and 'e-transparency' can help address corruption in the public sector. [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

• If trainees need additional confidence in handling these definitions, identify a short case study that does not overtly contain the definitions (for example, you could choose one of the 'Other eGov4Dev Cases' or 'Other Cases' from the Case List page). Get trainees to use the categorisation guidelines on the Transparency Project Categorisation page in order to categorise the case study in transparency terms. [ GROUP ]
• If trainer or trainees are unhappy with the listed definitions or categories, discuss or debate them; e.g. Are they appropriate to the trainees' own situation? Are they useful to the trainees or not? Are there better definitions or categories that could be used? [ GROUP ]

Part 2: Why eTransparency?

1. Explain that the whole notion of 'e-transparency' is still challenged. This part of the workshop looks at the reasons why one would (and might not) proceed with e-transparency projects. [ TRAINER ]

Other Possible Activities:

• For all of the sub-parts listed here - 2a, 2b, 2c - if trainees have a fair bit of experience on e-transparency projects, you can reverse the suggested order of activity within each sub-part. This means first getting the group to reflect on their experience in order to list the benefits (2a), drivers (2b) or costs/downsides (2c) of e-transparency projects. Only then do they read the relevant Web site pages, compare those with the lists the group has prepared, and draw any additional conclusions. [ TRAINEES amp; GROUP ]

Part 2a: What benefit from e-transparency?

[c.40 mins]

1. Get trainees to read through three sources on the benefits of e-transparency. First, the checklist of potential benefits on the Benefits/Costs of eTransparency page . Second, the checklist of benefits that can specifically accrue to poor communities, found on the eTransparency and Poor Communities page . Finally, an explanation of the specific value that ICTs add to transparency projects, on the Role of ICTs in Transparency Projects page . [ TRAINEES ]
2. In pairs, small groups or plenary, get trainees to use their reading plus their own experience to summarise the key benefits that they feel e-transparency projects should produce in their particular part of the public sector. [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

• If trainees need additional real-world evidence about the benefits of e-transparency, they can read through and then discuss the 'Impact' sections in one or more of the 17 main cases listed on the Case List page . [ TRAINEES amp; GROUP ]
• If trainees have specific concerns about the role of ICTs, get them to focus again on the Role of ICTs in Transparency projects page (including the 'But.' section), and then to discuss whether or not transparency, accountability, removal of corruption, etc can be better achieved without ICTs. [ TRAINEES amp; GROUP ]

Part 2b: Why proceed with e-transparency?

[c.40 mins]

1. Get trainees to read about the informal, personal benefits that e-transparency projects can deliver, on the Benefits/Costs of eTransparency page. [ TRAINEES ]
2. Next, get trainees to read about the main drivers that lie behind e-transparency projects in developing/transitional countries, on the Drivers of eTransparency Projects page . [ TRAINEES ]
3. In pairs, small groups or plenary, get trainees to use their reading plus their own experience to summarise the key reasons why e-transparency projects actually go ahead in their particular part of the public sector. [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

1. If trainees would like to consider the issue of drivers in greater detail, they can analyse and discuss whether there is a conflict between the real-world drivers for e-transparency projects, and the intended benefits of those projects. For example, do all the key groups driving the project forward really want to achieve greater transparency and reduced corruption? What does the group conclude from their answer? [ GROUP ]
2. If trainees need additional real-world evidence about the drivers of e-transparency, they can read through and then discuss the 'Application Drivers/Purpose' sections in one or more of the 17 main cases listed on the Case List page . [ TRAINEES amp; GROUP ]

   Part 2c: Why think twice about e-transparency?

[c.50 mins]

1. Get trainees to read about both the costs and downsides of e-transparency projects, on the Benefits/Costs of eTransparency page. [ TRAINEES ]
2. In pairs, small groups or plenary, get trainees to use their reading plus their own experience to summarise the key costs and the key downsides that they feel e-transparency projects in their particular part of the public sector are likely to produce. [ GROUP ]
3. Now get the group to compare their list of likely costs and downsides versus their list of likely benefits and drivers. They can see if one side of the 'equation' outweighs the other, or if they seem fairly even. What does the group conclude about the likely progress and outcome of e-transparency? [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

• If trainees need additional real-world evidence about the costs of e-transparency, they can read through and then discuss the 'Impact' sections in one or more of the 17 main cases listed on the Case List page. [ TRAINEES amp; GROUP ]

Part 3: Understanding eTransparency Projects

1. Review the workshop findings to date (these are likely to be: that e-transparency projects are useful but that they face some challenges). The next step, then, is to find out why some e-transparency projects do deliver their benefits, but others don't. [ TRAINER ]
2. Explain that there is no agreement about why e-transparency projects succeed or fail: different people give different explanations. Here, the group will look at two possible explanations for success/failure. But these explanations might not be relevant to everyone's situation. Rather than treat them as 'the truth', better to see them as starting points for thinking and planning. [ TRAINER ]

Part 3a: Simple factor explanation for project success/failure

[c.70 mins]

1. Get trainees to read through the Factor Model page. [ TRAINEES ]
2. In pairs or small groups, get trainees to provide examples from their own experience so that they make up their own factor list. These examples can be: ones that match the critical success factors listed; ones that match the critical failure factors listed; other factors that do not appear on the Web page. [ GROUP ]
3. Discuss the match or mismatch between the list of factors on the Web page and the list of factors developed by the trainees. What does the group conclude about factors present in one list but absent in the other? What does the group conclude overall about the factor model: is this a model that is relevant and useful in its current form, or one that needs to be modified to make it relevant and useful (if so, how), or is it simply not relevant or useful in any form (if the latter, then later factor model activities can be ignored)? [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

• Alternatively, if you wish to give trainees a more open space for reflection, reverse the order of activities above. Start by getting trainees in small groups to reflect on, and list, the factors they feel bring success or failure to an e-transparency project. Then get them to compare their list to the one on the Factor Model page. Then facilitate a group discussion and conclusions about the match or mismatch between the factor lists. [ GROUP ]
• If trainees have limited experience, they can spend more time reading and/or discussing the linked case study examples found on the Factor Model page. [ TRAINEES/GROUP ]
• If trainees have limited experience and/or you wish trainees to build their own list of success/failure factors from case material, then replace activities i. and ii. above by allocating each trainee group three or four of the 'eGov4Dev cases' (found on the Case List page). The groups should read their cases, focusing particularly on the 'Enablers' and 'Constraints' sections. Each group's task is to synthesise the enablers into a list of - at most - five top critical success factors for e-transparency, and to synthesise the constraints into a list of - at most - five top critical failure factors for e-transparency. The group lists can then be brought together to form a single plenary list via group report-back.
• If trainees need additional confidence in handling success/failure factors, identify a single e-transparency case study (for example, you could choose one of the 'Other eTransparency Cases' from the Case List page). Then get trainees in small groups to identify which critical success factors and/or which critical failure factors were present in the chosen case. [ GROUP ]

Part 3b: Design-reality gap explanation for project success/failure

[c.70 mins]

1. Get trainees to read through the Design-Reality Gap Model page. [ TRAINEES ]
2. In pairs or small groups, get trainees to provide examples of design-reality gaps from their own experience. For experience of successful projects, do they find that there are mainly small gaps between design and reality? For experience of unsuccessful projects, do they find that are mainly large gaps between design and reality? Are there other dimensions that are missing from the ITPOSMO checklist? [ GROUP ]
3. Discuss the match or mismatch between the ideas of the model, and the experience of the trainees. What does the group conclude about design-reality gaps: is this an idea that is relevant and useful in its current form, or one that needs to be modified to make it relevant and useful (if so, how), or is it simply not relevant or useful in any form (if the latter, then later design-reality gap activities can be ignored)? [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

• If trainees have limited experience, they can spend more time reading and/or discussing the linked case study examples found on the Design-Reality Gap Model page, though note that these do not dealing specifically with transparency or corruption [ TRAINEES/GROUP ]
• If trainees need additional confidence in handling design-reality gaps, identify a single e-transparency case study (for example, you could choose one of the cases from the Case List page). Then get trainees in small groups to identify the dimensions and size of design-reality gaps in the chosen case (note, unless the case is particularly detailed, trainees may be unable to identify all seven ITPOSMO dimensions). Discuss whether the overall size of gap relates to the reported outcome (success or failure) of the case. [ GROUP ]

Part 4: Practical Techniques for Successful eTransparency: Implemented Projects

1. Explain that many - likely most - e-transparency projects are failures of some kind, and that trainees need to take account of this in their work. With that in mind, the workshop now moves on to look at some practical techniques trainees can use if involved with e-transparency projects that have already been implemented. [ TRAINER ]

Part 4a: Was my e-transparency project a success or a failure?

[c.85 mins]

1. Get trainees to read through all five steps on the Project Assessment page. If necessary, discuss the steps in more detail. [ TRAINEES ]
2. Get trainees to work in pairs or small groups. Each pair/group should identify one implemented e-transparency project. Get them to undertake each of the five steps in turn. This often works best if one person (who has most experience of the chosen project) acts as the client, and the other group member(s) act as consultant(s) to that client. Those in the consulting role actually undertake the steps. Those in the client role answer the consultants' questions, and provide other active input as required. Each group should report back its assessment of the project - success, failure or something in-between. [ GROUP ]
3. In small groups and/or plenary, get trainees to reflect on the assessment process. Did the five steps work? How would they do the assessment differently next time? [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

• If trainees lack sufficient depth of project knowledge and/or the trainer wishes to have all trainees focus on the same case, the trainer can develop their own case study, ensuring that sufficient data is provided to cover all five of the assessment steps. Some of the eGov4Dev cases provided on the eTransparency Cases page, could be used as the basis for such a case study. Trainees then complete activities i.-iii. as above. [ GROUP ]

Part 4b: Why did my e-transparency project fail: factor model

[c.110 mins]

1. Get trainees to review the Failure Evaluation page. Then get trainees to read through the Factor Model Cause Identification page. [ TRAINEES ]
2. Get trainees to work in pairs or small groups on a real-world e-transparency failure case. Ideally, they should use a single real-world case with which all the group is familiar (e.g. one on which they are all currently employed). Alternatively, a text-based case must be prepared by the trainer: one of the Web site cases (found on the eTransparency Cases page) could be used as the basis for this. The trainees' task is to ask the ten factor questions in relation to the case, and give an answer rating for each factor. They should also ask similar questions for the two additional e-transparency factors not included on the existing page - about data infrastructure and legal infrastructure. (Refer to the Factor Model on the Causes of eTransparency Success and Failure page for more details.) Either a table or diagram should be used to present the findings, like those used in the worked example on the Web page. On that basis, the group should identify what it feels are the most likely causes of failure in this case. [ GROUP ]
3. Get the groups to reflect on the approach they have just used, and then discuss questions such as: Was this a relevant and useful approach to understanding causes of failure? What were its strong and weak points? How would we do it differently next time? [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

• If trainees need greater focus on taking action to combat failure then, once they have identified the main causes of project failure, get the trainee groups to develop an action plan for addressing those causes, either on the selected case or on future e-transparency projects. [ GROUP ]

Part 4c: Why did my e-transparency project fail: design-reality gaps

[c.110 mins]

1. If they have not already done so, get trainees to review the Failure Evaluation page . Then get trainees to read through the Design-Reality Gap Cause Identification page , including at least one of the related case examples. [ TRAINEES ]
2. Get trainees to work in pairs or small groups on a real-world e-transparency failure case. Ideally, they should use a single real-world case with which all the group is familiar (e.g. one on which they are all currently employed). Alternatively, a text-based case must be prepared by the trainer: one of the Web site cases (found on the eTransparency Cases page ) could be used as the basis for this. The trainees' task is - taking each of the ITPOSMO dimensions in turn - to identify organisational reality just prior to implementation; to identify the design assumptions/requirements; and then to give a 0-10 rating for the design-reality gap on that dimension. A table should be used to present the findings. On that basis, the group should identify what it feels are the most likely causes of failure in this case. [ GROUP ]
3. Get the groups to reflect on the approach they have just used, and then discuss questions such as: Was this a relevant and useful approach to understanding causes of failure? What were its strong and weak points? How would we do it differently next time? [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

• If trainees need greater focus on taking action to combat failure then, once they have identified the main causes of project failure (i.e. the main design-reality gaps), get the trainee groups to develop an action plan for addressing those causes, either on the selected case or on future e-transparency projects. [ GROUP ]
• If trainees need to think more about adapting design-reality techniques to their particular situation, get the groups to discuss in turn each of the 'Variations' listed on the Design-Reality Gap Cause Identification page. The groups should draw up an action plan for modifying the design-reality gap technique in practice. [ GROUP ]
• If trainees need to select one particular approach to identification of failure causes then, if they have undertaken both Part 4b and Part 4c, get them to discuss the relative merits and demerits of each approach, and to select one for future use. They can provide justification for their selection in a plenary report-back. [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

If trainees need to understand and/or adopt a learning approach to e-transparency failure, then add an additional part:

Part 4d. How can I learn from my e-transparency project's failure?

• Get trainees to read through the four stages of learning from e-transparency project failure on the Impacts of Failure page. [ TRAINEES ]
• Get the trainees, in small groups, to draw up an action plan explaining in more detail the structures and processes they would put in place in order to learn from e-transparency project failure in future. Given time, present and discuss these action plans. [ GROUP ]
• Get trainees to read through the analysis of why learning from failure is so rare, on the Impacts of Failure page. Get the groups to amend their action plans to show how they would try to avoid some of the identified problems. Discuss these amendments in plenary session. [ TRAINEES amp; GROUP ]

Part 5: What To Do About eTransparency Failure: Planned/In-Progress Projects

1. Reminder that many - likely most - e-transparency projects are failures of some kind, and that trainees need to take account of this in their work. With that in mind, the workshop now moves on to look at some practical techniques trainees can use if involved with e-transparency projects that are planned or that are in the middle of being implemented. [ TRAINER ]
2. Explain to the trainees that there are no panaceas to guard against e-transparency failure. If there were, then failure would have been banished long ago. Instead, there are just some ideas that some people may find feasible and effective (but some people may not). [ TRAINER ]

Part 5a: Assessing and reducing risks of e-transparency failure: design-reality gaps

[c.110 mins (i-ii) + 100 mins (iii-v)]

1. Get trainees to review the Risk Assessment page. Then get trainees to read through the Design-Reality Gap Risk Assessment page, including at least one of the related case examples. [ TRAINEES ]
2. Get trainees to work in pairs or small groups on a real-world e-transparency project that is planned or being implemented. Ideally, they should use a single real-world case with which all the group is familiar (e.g. one on which they are all currently employed). Alternatively, a text-based case must be prepared by the trainer: one of the Web site cases (such as those listed as "too early to evaluate" on the eTransparency Cases page) could be used as the basis for this. The trainees' task is - taking each of the ITPOSMO dimensions in turn - to identify organisational reality at present; to identify the design assumptions/requirements; and then to give a 0-10 rating for the design-reality gap on that dimension. A table or diagram, like those used in the worked example on the Web page, should be used to present the individual dimension gaps. The gaps for all the individual dimensions should be totalled, and compared to the results table on the Design-Reality Gap Risk Assessment page. On this basis, the group should draw conclusions about the likelihood of success or failure, and about the main sources of risk to the project. [ GROUP ]
3. Get trainees to read through the Design-Reality Gap Closure page, including at least one of the related case examples. [ TRAINEES ]
4. Assuming that the earlier group activity identified some potential sources of risk, get trainees to continue working in their existing groups on the same case. Based on their earlier identification of main sources (dimensions) of risk, the group should now make an action plan that directly addresses those dimensions through design-reality gap reduction. The plan should identify key generic and specific actions to take in order to reduce project risk and increase the likelihood of success. The group must show that any suggested actions are both desirable and feasible. [ GROUP ]
5. Get the groups to reflect on the approach they have just used, and then discuss questions such as: Was this a relevant and useful approach to assess and then reduce the risks of failure? What were its strong and weak points? How would we do it differently next time? [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

• If trainees need to think more about adapting design-reality techniques to their particular situation, get the groups to discuss in turn each of the 'Variations' listed on the Design-Reality Gap Risk Assessment page . The groups should draw up an action plan for modifying the design-reality gap technique in practice. [ GROUP ]
• If trainees need more practice with gap closure techniques, get trainee groups to read through one of the design-reality cases listed on the Cases page. Assess any gap closure recommendations that are made. Does the group agree with these? Are they both desirable and feasible? Are there other gap closure actions that could be taken?

Part 5b: Assessing and reducing risks of e-transparency failure: factor model

[c.90 mins (i-ii) + 90 mins (iii-v)]

1. If they have not already done so, get trainees to review the Risk Assessment page . Then get trainees to read through the Factor Risk Assessment page , including the worked example. [ TRAINEES ]
2. Get trainees to work in pairs or small groups on a real-world e-transparency project that is planned or being implemented. Ideally, they should use a single real-world case with which all the group is familiar (e.g. one on which they are all currently employed). Alternatively, a text-based case must be prepared by the trainer: one of the Web site cases (such as those listed as "too early to evaluate" on the eTransparency Cases page) could be used as the basis for this. The trainees' task is to ask the ten factor questions in relation to the case, and give an answer rating for each factor. They should also ask similar questions for the two additional e-transparency factors not included on the existing page - about data infrastructure and legal infrastructure. (Refer to the Factor Model on the Causes of eTransparency Success and Failure page for more details.) A table or diagram, like those used in the worked example on the Web page, should be used to present the individual factor ratings. The rating scores for all the individual questions should be totalled, and compared to the results table on the Factor Risk Assessment page (making allowances for the two additional factors, so a total score of up to 120 is possible). On this basis, the group should draw conclusions about the likelihood of success or failure, and about the main sources of risk to the project. [ GROUP ]
3. Get trainees to read through the Factor Action Ideas page. They should also read all the individual factor ideas pages that relate to those factors identified as main sources of risk to the project. [ TRAINEES ]
4. Assuming that the earlier group activity identified some potential sources of risk, get trainees to continue working in their existing groups on the same case. Based on their earlier identification of main sources (factors) of risk, the group should now make an action plan that directly addresses those factors. The plan should identify key ideas and actions to take in order to reduce project risk and increase the likelihood of success. The group must show that any suggested actions are both desirable and feasible. [ GROUP ]
5. Get the groups to reflect on the approach they have just used, and then discuss questions such as: Was this a relevant and useful approach to assess and then reduce the risks of failure? What were its strong and weak points? How would we do it differently next time? [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

1. If trainees need to think more about adapting factor risk assessment techniques to their particular situation, get the groups to discuss in turn each of the 'Variations' listed on the Factor Risk Assessment page . The groups should draw up an action plan for modifying the factor risk assessment technique in practice. [ GROUP ]
2. If trainees need more practice drawing out action points from real-world cases, divide the trainees into small groups. Allocate three or four of the 'eGov4Dev cases' (found on the Case List page ) to each group. The group should focus mainly on the 'Recommendations' section of each case. Their task is to synthesise all the recommendations into a list of - at most - five top recommendations for e-transparency project success. If possible, they can identify which of the twelve success/failure factors (found on the Factor Action Ideas page ) each one of their recommendations relates to. [ GROUP ]
3. If trainees need to select one particular approach to assess and reduce risks of e-transparency project failure then, if they have undertaken both Part 5a and Part 5b, get them to discuss the relative merits and demerits of each approach, and to select one for future use. They can provide justification for their selection in a plenary report-back. [ GROUP ]
4. If trainees need a wider selection of risk assessment techniques, get trainee groups to investigate other risk assessment models. Each group should present and justify which risk assessment technique (including design-reality gap and factor analysis) it sees as most effective, and should draw up an action plan for implementation of the technique. [ GROUP ]

Part 6: Other Practical Techniques to Avoid eTransparency Failure

1. Final reminder that many - likely most - e-transparency projects are failures of some kind, and that trainees need to take account of this in their work. With that in mind, the workshop now moves on to look at some final practical techniques trainees can use if involved with e-transparency projects. [ TRAINER ]

Part 6a: Who is involved in my e-transparency project?

[c.85 mins]

1. Get trainees to read through the mapping, examples and stakeholder questions on the eTransparency Project Stakeholders page . If necessary, discuss the identity of the stakeholder groups in more detail. [ TRAINEES ]
2. Get trainees to work in pairs or small groups. Each pair/group should identify one e-transparency project. Get them to undertake a stakeholder mapping. This often works best if one person (who has most experience of the chosen project) acts as the client, and the other group member(s) act as consultant(s) to that client. Those in the consulting role actually undertake the mapping. Those in the client role answer the consultants' questions, and provide other active input as required. Each group should report back its identification of project stakeholders. [ GROUP ]
3. Using the same pairs/groups, and the same approach, run through all of the stakeholder questions. Use these to evaluate whether the current set of stakeholders are, overall, likely to provide support or problems for the project. [ GROUP ]
4. In small groups and/or plenary, get trainees to reflect on the mapping process. Did it work? Was it useful? How would they do it differently next time? [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

• If trainees lack sufficient depth of project knowledge and/or the trainer wishes to have all trainees focus on the same case, the trainer can develop their own case study, ensuring that sufficient data is provided to cover all (or most) of the DOCTORS stakeholder groups, and all (or most) of the stakeholder questions. Some of the eGov4Dev cases provided on the eTransparency Cases page, could be used as the basis for such a case study. Trainees then complete activities i.-iv. as above. [ GROUP ]

Part 6b: In my e-transparency project, what factors should I bear in mind for poor communities?

[c.85 mins]

1. Get trainees to read through the list of key challenges and design responses that face e-transparency projects for poor communities on the eTransparency and Poor Communities page. [ TRAINEES ]
2. Get trainees to work in pairs or small groups. Each pair/group should identify one e-transparency project that involves one or more poor communities. Get them to identify the key challenges likely to face the project specifically in relation to the poor community, and also to identify some potential design responses. This often works best if one person (who has most experience of the chosen project) acts as the client, and the other group member(s) act as consultant(s) to that client. Those in the consulting role actually undertake the listing of challenges and design responses. Those in the client role answer the consultants' questions, and provide other active input as required. Each group should report back its identification of project challenges and design responses. [ GROUP ]
3. In small groups and/or plenary, get trainees to reflect on the process. Did it work? Was it useful for projects in poor communities? How would they do it differently next time? [ GROUP ]

Other Possible Activities:

• If trainees lack sufficient depth of project knowledge and/or the trainer wishes to have all trainees focus on the same case, the trainer can develop their own case study relevant to e-transparency and poor communities, ensuring that sufficient data is provided to identify some key challenges. Some of the eGov4Dev cases provided on the eTransparency Cases page, could be used as the basis for such a case study. Trainees then complete activities i.-iii. as above. [ GROUP ]

Part 7: Action Plans

[c.25 mins]

1. Get trainees to write down three key learning points from this workshop (i.e. the three most important things they feel they have learned from the workshop) and three key action points (i.e. three actions they wish to take on their return to the workplace as a result of undertaking this training). [ GROUP ]
2. Summarise some of the overall issues that have emerged from the workshop, and identify any "next steps". [ TRAINER ]

Other Possible Activities:

• If trainees need to get feedback on their personal action points, get trainees to share and discuss learning and action points with one other person and/or get trainees to share and discuss learning and action points in a plenary report-back. [ GROUP ]
• If generic or group action points need to be identified, get trainees to discuss further training or other generic action needs arising from the training workshop. [ GROUP ]
• If this training workshop needs to be evaluated, get trainees to fill in (and possibly discuss) an evaluation form. A simple evaluation form asks just four questions: "What was good about this workshop, that we should retain if we repeat the workshop?"; "What was not so good about this workshop, that we should change if we repeat the workshop?"; "What was missing from this workshop, that we should add if we repeat the workshop?"; "Any other comments?". [ GROUP ]