Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

TAMA-PHED PUNJAB Training Report fn 26-06-2010

506 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

TAMA-PHED PUNJAB Training Report fn 26-06-2010

  1. 1. Report on Training Workshop on Community Participation for Improved Water Management & Sanitation Services Capacity Building of PHED Technical & Community Development Unit Staff (South Punjab Region) Consultant(s) Zafar Ahmad, Team Leader Zubair Ahmad Qureshi, Social Scientist Ehsan Nadir, Logistics and Accounts Assistant Ali Adnan Amman, Logistics and Accounts Assistant May – June, 2010 Pakistan
  2. 2. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Table of Contents 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................................2 Abbreviations & Acronyms........................................................................................................................3 Acknowledgement......................................................................................................................................5 Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................6 1. Background & Introduction.................................................................................................................7 2. The Training Aim and Approach........................................................................................................8 3. Session Notes ......................................................................................................................................9 Session 1.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................9 Session 1.2 Right Based Approach ........................................................................................................9 Session 1.3 Vision ................................................................................................................................10 Session 2.1 Community Participation ...................................................................................................11 Session 2.2 Role & Responsibilities .....................................................................................................11 Session 2.3 W&SS Activities and Project Cycle Management.............................................................12 Session 3.1 Communication Skills........................................................................................................13 Session 3.2 Team Work........................................................................................................................13 4. Memorable & Award of Certificates to Participants......................................................................15 5. Participants’ Attendance Summary.................................................................................................16 6. Participants’ Learning Analysis........................................................................................................17 7. Workshop Facilitators’ Performance Analysis...............................................................................18 a. Style and Delivery .............................................................................................................18 b. Knowledge of Subject .......................................................................................................19 c. Responsive to the Group ..................................................................................................20 8. Overall Conduct of Training Program Analysis .............................................................................21 Conduct of Event ....................................................................................................................................21 9. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................22 10. Recommendations.............................................................................................................................23 11. Emerging Issues ................................................................................................................................24 Annexure – A: Participants’ Attendance Information..........................................................................25 Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment.............................................................................34 Annexure – C: Workshop Glimpses ......................................................................................................52 Annexure – D: Scanned Copies of Attendance Sheets ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
  3. 3. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Abbreviations & Acronyms 3 Abbreviations & Acronyms CDO Community Development Officer CDU Community Development Unit JRO Junior Research Officer MDGs Millennium Development Goal PCM Project Cycle Management PDSSP Punjab Devolved Social Services Program PHED Public Heath Engineering Department SDO Sub Divisional Officer TA Technical Assistance TAMA Technical Assistance Management Agency TORs Terms of References WASCOs Water and Sanitation Community Organisations WSS Water Supply and Sanitation
  4. 4. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Responsibility 4 Responsibility This report reflects consultants’ observations and experiences based on the level of interpersonal communication, interaction with the trainees’, coordination level and information shared & perceived. There is always room for improvement. However, it is not necessary for the reader to agree with the contents, conclusion, suggestions and areas of improvement as indentified there in.
  5. 5. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Acknowledgement 5 Acknowledgement A training program is regarded as investment to human capital ir-respect of its cost recorded as expense. None of the capacity building program can achieve the devised objectives unless utmost commitment is ensured from the High Ups. Such extended gesture provides life line to a training program; as rest of the structure to the grass root level even to the participants and ultimate beneficiaries of the program, lies on the self-less commitment and ownership of the program by the top level management. This PHED and Community Development Unit capacity building program on community participation for Improved Water Management and Sanitation Services is privileged on having attained un-shattered commitment and all the time ownership by Mr. Irfan Ali, Secretary – HUD & PHED and his dream-team, since inception to the end activity of the event. There is no question about to admit the presence of ingredient PHED top management commitment resulted into meet with the realistic interpretation of the matter. TAMA Training Team is thankful to the focal person(s) heading Public Health Engineering Department at District as well as Divisional level. The Superintendent Engineer and Executive Engineer(s) extended their cooperation to pursue attendance level of their staff members in the training sessions. It has been great honour to have presences of Executive Engineer(s) in most of the training sessions as participant alongwith their full length staff members showing sound gesture of his involvement in the program. We are also thankful to the participants: CDO and CBMs in particular and PHED Technical staff in general. At each district level in south Punjab region; very effective participation is extended by the CDU team. This is evident by all the time attendance ratio of CDU Team. We are also thankful to TAMA & PDSSP personnel, particularly, the Team Leader – TAMA and Project Evaluation & Monitoring Officer; Mr. Javed Iqbal; extended valuable guidance and support to complete the event as planned. I am also personally thankful to the dream team members attached to me in order to carry out the event. With their selfless efforts, I, being Team Leader have been successful in performance of the task without experiencing any conflict in the team. Zafar Ahmad Team Leader (SP60-1)
  6. 6. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Executive Summary 6 Executive Summary In pursuance of devised training objectives; program commenced as per inception report and first training commenced on 10th May, 2010. In south Punjab Region, 09 Districts: Muzaffargarh, Layyah, Multan, Dear Ghazi Khan, Rajan Pur, Rahim Yar Khan, Bahawalpur, Lodhran and Bahawalnagar, are taken into account. There are 189 registered participants comprising to both PHED Technical and Community Development Unit Staff, in all above nine districts. As per 03 day training agenda, sessions as per manual are unfolded in the workshops. The community development unit is seen more enthusiastic and participative in the workshops, believed as the reason of being first ever training program arranged for the staff members since they got appointment in PHED. The technical unit has also been paying attention to the training content, but experienced as having thrust to acquire knowledge and skills relating to their core work assignments: like designing and technicalities of water supply scheme projects. In most of the training sessions we received feedback as technical unit intend to have training pertaining to their core work assignments and eager acquire the use of new technology in delivery of their assignments. Total of 189 registered participants in 09 Districts of South Punjab Region; over all 87.90% of participants attended the training program wherein community development unit has been upfront in maintaining good attendance in training sessions. In most of the training sessions, the focal person(s) at District level i.e. the Executive Engineer attended the training sessions on regular basis for three days. The District Layyah has been at the top in maintaining 100% attendance level in all three days of training where as Bahawalnagar is seen as lowest attendance level with 70% while in other districts attendance level has been in between 85% to 95%. A summary on participants’ attendance is provided herein where as detailed analysis given as per Annexure-A. Those participants were awarded with the certificates of participation attended at least for two days of training sessions. Alongwith the certificates, participants were provided with the group photo as well as list of participants serving as memorable of the event. Likewise training, every event has an opportunity cost; which is very much justified with the level of achievement of objectives both in qualitative and quantitative manner. For the reason, a coherent training evaluation kit was developed (as per format provided in the inception report) and used to assess the training outcomes covering different dimensions: pre & post test analysis, participants’ self assessment, Trainers’ performance analysis and over all training program evaluation inviting participants’ suggestions to improve future programs. District wise of the training, a comprehensive analysis is done as per Annexure(s)
  7. 7. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | 1.Background & Introduction 7 1. Background & Introduction The Punjab Devolved Social Services Program seeks to achieve progress with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) related to poverty, gender, education, health, and water supply and sanitation (WSS). The Program’s objective is to strengthen devolved social services for a more equitable, efficient, effective, and sustainable delivery of social services. The Program is built around three principal policy outcomes: (i) realigning intergovernmental relations to support devolved social services; (ii) rationalizing and setting minimum standards for social services; and (iii) strengthening the public accountability mechanisms and promoting public-private partnership. The Program covers all 36 district governments and 34 program Tehsil (town) municipal administrations (TMAs). The Community Development Unit (CDU) of the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) has assumed the important role of promoting community participation in design, implementation and operation & maintenance of water supply schemes. The recently established CDU is staffed with one Community Development Officer (CDO) and six Community Based Motivators (CBMs) in each district of the Punjab Province. Additionally there are around 3611 Water Supply and Sanitation Community Organisations (WASCOs) running water supply schemes installed by PHED. The PHED has identified the need for technical assistance (TA) to strengthen its Community Development Unit for improved rural water management and sanitation services at community level. Additionally the department wants to build the capacity of both its engineering section on effective involvement of communities in design, implementation and operation & maintenance of water supply schemes. As we have observed, most of the development work carried out results into wastage of tax generated resources. Same is the case with water supply and sanitation schemes as well. The main reason has been seen as non-involvement of end beneficiaries - the community people for whom the schemes is actually implemented; are not taken into account at any stage of the project cycle. Hence the result is obvious. The community dame cares of such high cost projects that can not benefit as per their requirements. On one side, where the competent officials feel that they can do sound decisions and know better which of the service is crucial to the public; gets reaction of the public being irrelevant to all such matter. There is no sense of ownership prevails in the community; and at the end such development schemes remain unsustainable. Therefore, such training program is evolved in order to strengthen the capacity of CBMs on board in CDU as well as PHED technical personnel decision making process in lines with taking community desire and wants into account. This is a sound initiative basically to get the behaviour change towards community mobilization so that they feel the ownership in the project to sustain in the long run. Therefore, capacity building program is designed to have CDU and PHED technical staff sits together in a training workshop to equip them with handy skills to work on the water schemes more effectively. PHED in south Punjab region, comprising to 09 districts entrusted to the team of four members: Zafar Ahmad (TL) with Social Scientist Zubair Ahmad, having support from Ehsan Nadir and Ali Adnan Aman as logistics Assistant(s) to conduct training session in the above region.
  8. 8. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | 2.The Training Aim and Approach 8 2. The Training Aim and Approach The training program commenced obviously with the training schedule as elaborated in the inception report; but in pursuance of following training objectives:-  To enhance the capacity of the CDU and engineering section staff in community mobilization and participation.  To improve effective interaction between PHED and CBOs (WASCOs) In order to achieve above milestones, the training mixes theory with practical applications, introducing a range of interactive training methods, such as group discussions and practical exercises. Training proceedings carried as session plan; this has been key strategy to utilize the time on floor effectively. Participatory tools like: Group work, Role Play, Brain Storming, Energizers, Audio – Visual presentations are used to make the session interactive.  PHED focal person at district level i.e. Executive Engineer (Heading PHED at district level) is contacted first requesting him to direct the staff to participate in the training session alongwith maintaining good attendance level during sessions.  Logistic arrangements for training workshops ensured well before commence of each training workshop. Keeping in view the far long districts; sufficient and necessary days are taken into account between conduct of every training event.  Each participant is provided with a training kit: nicely prepared filing bag with workshop topic printed on it, a writing pad bearing sufficient and necessary quality papers, eraser and sharpener. Every participant is also provided with nicely printed name tag. Also, name tag to be put on the desk for each participant was arranged. This strategy worked fine to grab the attention of each participant during the sessions by address him/her with his/her own name.  Congenial working environment is ensured by providing air-conditioning facilities, comfortable seating arrangement, necessary audio-visual aids, noise free learning environment and delicious lunch and refreshments.  Easy to understand preferably participants feel comfortable language was used to unfold the training content so that participants’ interest and attention is ensured.  Daily evaluation exercise carried out by taking participants feedback on their own learning as well as workshop facilitators’ performance; with the intention to improve applying best of skills and demonstrated behaviour to meet training objectives.  Alongwith daily evaluation; a comprehensive workshop evaluation format and pre-post test mechanism was designed as per specimen annexed with inception report; is applied here in letter and spirit.  In order to encourage participants; those who attended at least for two days of training session awarded with the certificate of participation. In addition to this, Hard copy of participants list, soft copy of training content & power point presentations and one printed group photo taken in the workshop also provided to each training participant.
  9. 9. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | 3.Session Notes 9 3. Session Notes As per inception report submitted to TAMA – Team Leader, this report is reflection on the activities taken as per plan and performed in the field i.e. concerned with the training sessions held there at. Following is the description on summarizing training session by session notes accumulated over the 09 training workshops:- Session 1.1 Introduction The workshop(s) is always inaugurated with recitation from versus of the Holly Quran followed by the welcome note from the TAMA - Team. Where ever, the Executive Engineer took some time out from his pre-occupied assignments and grace the occasion in the workshop with his presence; he was invited for inaugural address and sought view point on the scope of the training program. The participants took keen interest in the introduction to participants’ activity “Hum Tum”; and received as improvement in their presentational skills as they were supposed to introduce their counter-part, in pairs, on the floor. The training agenda was discussed and hard copy provided to each participants; that developed a sketch on what to do during the course of the training days. The participants were invited their expectations about the training; and then linked to the devised training objectives. It was found good that participants’ expectation almost 100% matched with the training objectives except for expectations from some technical staff interested to learn how to use the technical equipment and design of water supply scheme. Pre-Test to assess the learning before training is conducted to come up with the understanding of participants on the concepts supposed to be discussed in the training outline. It was welcomed by the participants without showing annoyance on pre-examining the participants’ capabilities. This activity helped in devising the strategy to unfold the training content as per level of understanding of the participants. The introduction session is lasted with chalk out of Code of Conduct to proceed the session in a smooth fashion and to observe the punctuality in break hours and attendance in letter and spirit. Session 1.2 Right Based Approach This session is floored with the objective to refresh and sensitized the participants on understanding of RIGHT in other words applying RESPONSIBILITY to the individual. Its inception and development from time to time was gone through the presentation. The participants were brain-stormed on the word right and concluded with the precise definition on RIGHT: as claim to respect, protect and fulfill. The session was taken in plannery through power point presentation. The convention(s): the Last Sermon of PBUH, Magna Carta, UDHR, CEDAW, and CRPD were discussed with the participants. In the second part of the session, the definition of governance and application of good governance characteristics discussed and participants view point taken “as implementation is
  10. 10. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | 3.Session Notes 10 ideally done good ir-respect of some lashes in policy, if prevailed. At length debate carried out; participants get involved. A commitment extended in the sense that by exerting self-less efforts to work with the Right Based approach can turn the situation to achieve supply scheme sustainable. Session 1.3 Vision This session is critical to the extent to sensitize the PHED personnel to own their own PHED vision with the approach to deliver in a coherent way. Session commenced with the brainstorming on the definition of vision and probing on the PHED defined vision statement. After having deliberate discussion PHED vision analyzed on characteristics: comprehensive, positive, relative, participative, priority based, problem solving and concise & to the point. The participants came to know on the importance of vision as action without vision is mere a dream; wastage of time. Action and vision together put vim and extra ordinary energy vital to communicate effectively with the community. The participant emphasized the purpose of adopting PHED vision in their routine assignment. Such support encourage the team; and keep such statements: PHED vision and goal all the time in mind would lead to develop integrated efforts between the technical and community development staff towards on main objective of delivery of assignments with effective participation of community with the dream to meet dream of sustainable project. The participants came to know that dissemination of PHED vision in the community would give them feel that PHED personal is with the community and they are here to exert self-less efforts in supreme interest of one cause – “Yeh Ghar to Aakhir Apna hiey”. The session wrapped with the emphasis on pursuance of Millennium Development Goal # 07 that places obligations to PHED personal to provide optimum quality and acceptable quality of water on sustainable basis, at least to half of the needy and deserving communities deprived from clean and safe drinking water. Here as under some extract on the day end participants’ comments regarding session on “Vision’; that clearly portrayed the extent of eagerness, enthusiasm and commitment to include and get support from vision statement in performance of work.  Concept on PHED Vision was explained and understood.  Integrated efforts between PHED Technical and CDU staff can be ensured by imitating the philosophy of PHED vision.  Learnt techniques to use vision statement during the course of work and interaction with the community  Learnt skill how to use vision statement and exploit community to achieve their effective participation during the course of work  Idiomatic discussion on vision enjoyed a lot.  Learnt to covert PHED vision into practical application during discharge of responsibilities.  Majority of the participants in 09 districts, shared that first time, they came to know about Vision and goal of PHED  This session developed a sense of responsibility as “we should work hard as much as possible in the interest of department”.
  11. 11. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | 3.Session Notes 11  Such session sensitized and provided self-motivation to exert high level of efforts to use the tool of vision in getting work done effectively and efficiently  Such learning in the session, provided us a tool in using to get community confidence in order to make them agree towards fulfill of objectives (comments from CBMs) Session 2.1 Community Participation This session is the core session with respect to the title of the workshop. Session commenced with brainstorming on definition of “Community” and participants view point is taken on board. With different like minded view point preferably taken from PHED Technical staff; concluded with the people living in a territorial jurisdiction having interest in sharing and production of financial and social resources – termed as community. Then discussion leaded to the difference in stakeholder and influential entities; and discussed converted into debate that an influential may not be a stakeholder but reverse may be true. Different stakeholder (beneficiary) in the community were discussed and emphasized that such deprived and normally ignored persons, persons living with disability should be engaged in participatory development. The structure of participatory development was discussed. The stages of social mobilization: sensitization, realization, conceptualization, organization (motivation, implementation, monitoring). The participants shared that mobilization is stated with the philosophy to change the behaviour towards social development. It is a process in which people are made enable to discuss their problems, make plans to solve them, utilize their existing resources, solve them and sustain it. The good qualities of a CBM were taken on the floor. The participants spoke in recognizing with the sense to desire of having such attributes in each of personality involved in community mobilization. The session ended with the focus on participatory development and using tools of mobilization and community effective participation towards sustainable project. Session 2.2 Role & Responsibilities In this session, Role and Responsibilities relating to the job assignments of every participant are discussed; with the session objective as fully conversant of job assignments really turn to effective deliverables. The participants were invited to come up with their view point as they understand about the terms: TORs, Job Description and Job Specifications. Almost in every training sessions, some interesting meaning to these terms came resulting to that there is dire need of applications under sound HR practices. All participants were divided into groups by designation and asked to write down the tasks they perform in lines from identification to handing over of waster supply scheme. After group work, participants came on floor through a group leader and presented the tasks they perform. At length Q/A were taken after each presentation. Most of the participants told as being first time they came to know the task their colleagues perform.
  12. 12. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | 3.Session Notes 12 The participants stressed that a comprehensive written TOR document must be provided to each employee so that every one must be conversant not only to his/her job responsibilities but with others job description as well. It was observed that if such application tool is applied in letter and spirit would leave healthy influence in exercise of applying integrated efforts between CDU and PHED Technical Staff. Some extract from the feedback of participants on the session is taken here as under; the participants speak as:-  Learnt the concept and importance of having documented TORs  First time, it happed to have debate on developing the understanding on TORs  Written TORs document must be provided to each cadre of employee working in PHED at District level. Having gone through the contents of training session on Role and Responsibilities; it translates that understanding with oneself own TORs as well as with TORs of other colleagues would provide trust, strengthen integrated efforts to create coordinated efforts to perform the assignments effectively.  It was learnt that first “plan the work then work the plan” Session 2.3 W&SS Activities and Project Cycle Management The session started with the description on learning outcome that participants would be able to the application of new development ideas in planning process and to make sure community participation in the planning process of the scheme. The participants welcomed the brainstorming and take part in developing consensus of project cycle phases and indentify the phases/stages of PCM. In the plannery, it was discussed that each phase: identification of the scheme, designing of the scheme, implementation and monitoring; the skill that are required to be used. The participants shared that in these activities community capacity building is required in order to get effective in put in design of the water supply of scheme. PHED personnel have the responsibility to discuss merits and de-merit of the proposal and come up with the recommendations that the kind of plan would be beneficial and acceptable for the community. Such community involvement would enhance their confidence and lead towards ownership. A prominent activity during the course of implementation and monitoring; community may be well versed with their role and responsibility. This would exercise healthy influence and get willingness to exert high level of efforts from the community. In second part of the session, participants were involved in a group work providing lists of activities (listed at random) require to be performed from identification of the scheme to handing over to the community; and the participants were asked to list down number of activities in order with reference to the phases of PCM. The participants were also requested to write down the designation who is supposed to perform that specific activity. The participants enjoyed the activity and refresh their understanding on actually who is responsible in performing the activity in focus. This enhanced their learning as well as feel of sense of responsibility to perform.
  13. 13. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | 3.Session Notes 13 Session 3.1 Communication Skills After completing core work-related sessions, before to conclude as per training plan; all the time important session on communication skills was conducted by the Social Scientist. Session commenced with the ice-breaking activity. Most renowned activity named as “Chine’s Whisper” was initiated to get the participants realized how communications changes the original context when carried from person to person. The activity ended with the explanation of communication model; but participants showed some concerns that the model has been silent about “feedback” component – an integral ingredient to make communication effective. Some arguments were exchanged on the point of contention; but trainer did not agree even on “receiver’s response can be treated as feedback” as claimed by the participants. The discussion left by linking the demonstrated model of communication with the “JO-HARI Window” – the most appropriate tool helpful for “SELF” analysis. The four parts of SELF window: Open, Hidden, Blind and Dark; were keenly observed, shared, understood and learning enjoyed by the participants. The activity lasted with the lesson learned: that in normal course of life, we just concentrate of apparent things in making our judgments in communication and in other spheres as well. We can come up with sound decisions by concentrating the things very minutely. However, the participants enjoyed it. Then session came live with explanation of definition on communication directing the discussion to tools of communication. Slideshow explained; but at the point of “ownership of the problem – let the problem be handled to which it pertains” developed contention as the social scientist insisted that there should be no ‘arbitrary” all the way to settle the issues among the persons to which matter pertains; where as participants were of the view that “arbitration” process cannot be ruled out to address the problem and be useful at the discretion of the owner(s) of the problem. The communication problem can be strengthened to empower people through dialogue at their own in order to develop effective communication. However, session proceeded with the slideshow on “I” statements covering that listening blocks, stroking, reflecting listening, observation, etc. Session wrapped up with the observation of the participants, “as we say communication is a two way process; feedback an essential component be included in the model presented in the session.” For example, in telephonic conversation; feedback is obvious. Session lasted with the delivery of printed stuff on “Four stages of awareness” to participants. - From evaluation, it is revealed that 95% of the participants think that topic is most relevant to their work. - Most of the participants considered the session important to their assignments and enjoyed the session at large. - The participants considered that application of effective communication skills can make delivery of their job assignments in a coherent way. - Some of the participants raised observations that delivery of the session has not been in adequate manner. Session 3.2 Team Work Another session relevant to personality and career development and to strengthen the participation skills to communicate effectively with the community and to maintain sound working relationships among the PHED team members (both CDU and Technical staff) was included in the training agenda with the topic: Team work covering the sub-ingredients of team
  14. 14. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | 3.Session Notes 14 strengths and limitations, individual role in the team, creating positive team culture, characteristics of effective team, using strengths and team phases & team roles. For the purpose, the session initiated with an activity “Completing Broken Squares” by dividing participants into group of 5 persons rest of them taken as observer. The group work lasted at elapse of 10 minutes or before any of all team members completed the task. At the end the observers were asked to come up with their observations on following prominent questions:-  Who was ready to give his/her pieces to other participants, after completing his/her own square?  Who remained isolated after completing his/her square?  Who gave up the efforts and remained despair?  When the team started to cooperate? After the stipulated period of time, participants assembled in the session with all requirements made available on the floor. The Resource person highlighted the attributes that team work efforts are more fruitful as compared to doing by an individual with lack of coordination. The key learning through this activity were linked to the definition of the team providing the concept of people working altogether under one specific purpose. Individual learn from each other and complex projects have better chances to get completed with the collective efforts of entrusted team; provides greater strengths. Also, team has to face challenges of dilution of responsibility, distribution of credit and Ego of conflicting personalities. Through a slideshow participants were informed about the role(s) in forming, storming, performing and norming of team stages. In order to make the session interactive, participants were invited to share the expression as they might have been first time in the community. In responses to the participants’ views; discussion focused on the obligations need to comply with and overcome the deficiencies: shyness, un-bounded influenced. Then an energizer/joke was shared in order to make session live followed by the guidelines to deliver presentation in an effective way. At the point of capturing the audience; the participants shared that there is difference between capturing and drawing attention of the audience. Session feedback states that:- - Participants appreciated the session for learning as in the entire length of service they have been ignorant about such techniques. They had been busy as being remained in their office room most of the time and could not spare some time to think about it. - As per written comments, most of the participants enjoyed learning in the session as being first time encountered with presentation techniques. - Mostly, participants remarked as “learned how to organize work in team for achieving object The session ended in plannery sharing that “coming together is beginning, keeping together is progress and working together is success”.
  15. 15. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | 4.Memorable & Award of Certificates to Participants 15 4. Memorable & Award of Certificates to Participants In order to make training event memorable, participants were equipped with the following items at the end of each training session:-  Certificate of Participation to those participants who at least for two days attended training sessions.  Hard Copy of Participants’ List  Group Photo (size 8 x 10) pasted on A4 size meta card, nicely managed, provided to each participants appearing in the snap  Soft copy (on CD) carrying training content, photographs, and power point presentations provided to each participant, for further reference. Certificates were got printed and routed to office of the Secretary – PHED, through Team Leader – TAMA in order to get it signed. On receipt of signed certificates were dispatched to concerned district office of PHED. Whereas the above listed remaining stuff was arranged to provide in the closing ceremony of each training workshop. In the last but not the least, as per directions of Team Leader – TAMA, delegate allowance @ Rs.2,000/= was disbursed to those participants attended the training session fall on Saturday. As per plan, such training sessions fall at District Layyah, Rajan Pur and Lodhran.
  16. 16. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | 5.Participants’ Attendance Summary 16 5. Participants’ Attendance Summary Participants’ attendance level in the training workshop is key indicator to justify the event cost. Here as under District wise participants’ attendance is summarized:- Sr. # District Day-01 Day-02 Day-03 Accumulative Attended %age Attended %age Attended %age Attended %age 01. Muzaffargarh 25 96.15 25 96.15 26 100 76 97.44 02. Layyah 18 100 18 100 18 100 54 100.00 03. Multan 15 88.24 13 76.47 13 76.47 41 80.39 04. D. G. Khan 18 94.74 19 100 18 94.74 55 96.49 05. Rajan Pur 11 84.62 11 84.62 12 92.31 34 87.18 06. R. Y. Khan 21 84.00 19 76.00 20 80.00 60 80.00 07. Bahawalpur 22 88.00 23 92.00 21 84.00 66 88.00 08. Lodhran 15 93.75 14 87.50 15 93.75 44 91.67 09. Bahawal Nagar 17 56.67 27 90.00 19 63.33 63 70.00 District wise detail is also ready for perusal as Annexure – A where in each participant’s attendance is recorded and summarized against registered strength of PHED at each district level.
  17. 17. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | 6.Participants’ Learning Analysis 17 6. Participants’ Learning Analysis For the purpose of quantitative analysis of workshop objectives; a questionnaire was designed in mixture of multiple choices as well as open-ended questions to assess the knowledge and skill of the participants possessed before and after the training workshop. The pre and post test is applied to all attendees in the training workshop; and district wise comparison is given here as under:- Sr. # District Participants Learning outcome Before Training After Training (-/+)%age 01. Muzaffargarh 14% 42% 28% 02. Layyah 20% 68% 49% 03. Multan 23% 75% 52% 04. Dera Ghazi Khan 19% 79% 60% 05. Rajan Pur 13% 57% 44% 06. Rahim Yar Khan 11% 60% 49% 07. Bahwalpur 11% 86% 75% 08. Lodhran 16% 64% 48% 09. Bahwal Nagar 27% 76% 49% However in each district, session wise learning comparison regarding pre & post test analysis can be examined as per Annexure – B. The above evaluation tool is used by the training team to assess the learning outcome of participants. In addition, another evaluation tool is also devised in the sense participants are invited to rate their knowledge and skills before and after conduct of training program. Therefore an overall workshop evaluation is conducted by inviting participants’ self-assessment of their knowledge and skills as how they rate themselves in getting competency before and after the training:- The evaluation parameter is defined as:- a. Low b. B/w Low – Medium c. Medium d. B/w Medium – High e. High The Participants rated themselves in regard to competency before and after the training is over; session-to-session district wise glimpses are given as per Annexure – B.
  18. 18. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | 7.Workshop Facilitators’ Performance Analysis 18 7. Workshop Facilitators’ Performance Analysis The participants were invited to provide feedback on daily basis in regard to assess competency of the Team Leader and Social Scientist’ while conduct of sessions. In this concern, input received on following parameters: - a. Style and Delivery b. Knowledge of Subject c. Responsive to the group The participants evaluated the performance in terms of rating as they:- 1 = Strongly Disagree (Poor) 2 = Disagree (Fair) 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree (Average) 4 = Agree (Very Good) 5 = Strongly Agree (Excellent) with the desired level of performance on above parameters A comparison is shown on all five levels of performances under each of the above parameters from Serial Number a – c. Whereas %age of the competency is taken ONLY to the extent of high level of rating number (5) received as “Strongly Agree” i.e. the portion of participants rated the workshop facilitator’s performance as “EXCELLENT”. a. Style and Delivery Here as under Data on “Style and Delivery” of content is taken into consideration. Sr. # Resource Person Session Conducted Style and Delivery %age on Strongly Agree (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 01 Zafar Ahmad Workshop Facilitator/ Team Leader Introduction 111 50 7 1 0 66% Vision 124 29 15 1 0 73% Role and Responsibilities 127 37 5 0 0 75% Team Work 137 30 2 0 0 81% 02 Zubair Ahmad Qureshi Social Scientist Right based Approach 105 51 9 1 3 62% Community Participation 107 52 9 0 1 63% Project Cycle Management 110 49 7 3 0 65% Communication Skills 117 46 5 0 1 69% Showing %age of participants as "Strongly Agreed" as EXCELLENT demonstraed skills on style and delivery by Workshop Facilitators 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1 2 3 4 Social Scientist Team Leader
  19. 19. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | 7.Workshop Facilitators’ Performance Analysis 19 The graphical representation shows %age number of participants (along y-axis) whereas consolidated session number delivered by the workshop facilitator. Each Workshop facilitator delivered equal number of sessions i.e. 4 in each training session resulting that 36 session in 09 workshops i.e. session on topic delivered for 09 times. Image portrays the picture on the number of participants rated each workshop facilitators’ performance as “EXCELLENT” by providing their input at “Strongly Agreed” with the desired level of performance in terms of “Style and Delivery” of the content. b. Knowledge of Subject Here as under Data on “Knowledge of Subject” parameter is taken into consideration. Sr. # Resource Person Session Conducted Knowledge of Subject %age on Strongly Agree (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 01 Zafar Ahmad Workshop Facilitator/ Team Leader Introduction 128 38 2 1 0 76% Vision 129 35 3 1 1 76% Role and Responsibilities 131 36 2 0 0 78% Team Work 137 26 4 2 0 81% 02 Zubair Ahmad Qureshi Social Scientist Right based Approach 99 58 6 4 2 59% Community Participation 110 51 6 2 0 65% Project Cycle Management 110 53 5 1 0 65% Communication Skills 120 43 5 0 1 71% Showing %age of participants as "Strongly Agreed" as EXCELLENT demonstraed skills on knowledge of the subject by Workshop Facilitators 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1 2 3 4 Social Scientist Team Leader
  20. 20. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | 7.Workshop Facilitators’ Performance Analysis 20 c. Responsive to the Group Evaluation in terms of Responsiveness to the group is analyzed as under:- Sr. # Resource Person Session Conducted Responsive to the Group %age on Strongly Agree (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 01 Zafar Ahmad Workshop Facilitator/ Team Leader Introduction 106 53 7 3 0 63% Vision 108 45 14 2 0 64% Role and Responsibilities 127 38 4 0 0 75% Team Work 133 28 7 1 0 79% 02 Zubair Ahmad Qureshi Social Scientist Right based Approach 83 73 8 3 2 49% Community Participation 100 62 5 2 0 59% Project Cycle Management 101 61 5 1 1 60% Communication Skills 113 48 5 1 2 67% Note:- In conclusion that:- - Above analysis in terms evaluating workshop facilitator’s performance; in graphical presentation only such responses are taken into consideration vide which participants responded and recognized the performance as excellent. In result to that percentage is shown against each of the session under respective parameters. - It is pertinent to mention that remaining percentage is divided in four level of performance(s) segregated each of the participants’ response as Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree with reference to desired level of competency of workshop facilitator. - Therefore, in comparison of percentage achieved as above; does not confer that facilitator, e.g. with less that 50% are low performer as rest of percentage is composed with remaining response from level 4 to 1 as shown above in the respective table. - It is observed that 50 – 80 percent of the responses from the participants suggest that facilitators’ performance has been excellent. Showing %age of participants as "Strongly Agreed" as EXCELLENT demonstraed skills on resopnse to the group by Workshop Facilitators 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1 2 3 4 Social Scientist Team Leader
  21. 21. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | 8.Overall Conduct of Training Program Analysis 21 8. Overall Conduct of Training Program Analysis Besides daily evaluation, also at the end of the training, participants were asked for detailed feedback and further suggestion to improve degree of excellence in the upcoming training events. The valuable features furnished by the participants are summarized here as under:- Conduct of Event Ingredient Grading Remarks Workshop Days Too Short (34 ) Just Right ( 135) - 80% in favour Daily Timings - Just Right (140) Too Long (29 ) Majority favoured Practical Activities Very Effective (161) Somewhat effective (08 ) - Translates training has been interactive Handouts Issued Very Relevant (156 ) Just right (7) Too many ( 06 ) Recognized by Participants Visual Aids Well used () Very Well used (169) Just right ( ) Unanimously appriciated Training Location (Seating Arrangement & Comfort) Poor ( - ) Better/good (169) - Participants Unanimously praised Refreshment/ Lunch Quality Poor ( - ) Good (169) - As Above
  22. 22. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | 9. Conclusions 22 9. Conclusions  As PHED Technical staff is engaged in somehow behaviour change approached based training workshop getting their extended coordination for joining hands with CDU for effective delivery of assignments. As training objectives were made conversant with the participant during the introduction session; apparently, it depicted from the gestures of the participants i.e. from PHED Technical Staff that “there is nothing for them regarding their core work assignments like developing a proposal scheme, use of sophisticated tools, survey techniques, developing maps and reports etc”. Somewhat they felt as have nothing as for as engineers and SDOs are concerned. If such manual is strengthened with at least technical session related to the core work assignments of engineering staff; it would have been much more beneficial and even to strengthen the integrated efforts between technical and CDU staff as well.  Most of participants seemed complaining about their pay structure. It is not performance based. Therefore the personnel deliver with utmost commitment remain with same benefits, enjoy the same motivational applications as of personnel who deliver in usually manner.  In the last quarter i.e. April – June of financial year, most of the public sector organizations are busy in closing their deliverables. Same has been experienced while conducting workshops in the last quarter for PHED. This has been the main reason for drop out/left-over participants. Therefore, in future trainings for PHED personnel should be planned preferably in first quarter of the financial year.  While conduct of training sessions in south Punjab districts; it is experienced that fresh blood inducted in PHED in terms of establishing CDU and considerable human resource on technical side; is seemed to be committed in delivery of services. In spite that majority of PHED staff members specifically were unaware of PHED vision and stated goal before conduct of training but they looked committed and dedicated to deliver regardless what the pay structure is applied to them. More than 80% of the human resource were required training as since their appointment have been unable to grab the opportunity of having training sessions. This training program proved as a blessing for them.  As suggested by the participants, we also include that training program very much relevant to the core assignments of technical staff be focused while planning of capacity building program in future.
  23. 23. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | 10.Recommendations 23 10. Recommendations In pursuance of 09 training sessions, as per feedback from the participants, following recommendations are summarized giving priority to participants view point:-  In such training workshops community people should also be invited in this training workshop so that effective interaction and solutions be generated on the schemes which are not owned by the community and seen in large number as un-sustainable. This move may turn to get non-functional schemes into functional and sustainable.  In such training workshops TA/DA (Delegate Allowance) should be given to the participants, ir-respect of trainings falling on Saturday.  Training Manual should be comprehensive as of training manual developed for JROs technical training.  For Technical staff, separate training must be arranged. Trainings on imparting technical knowledge skills like use of instrument like AUTO CAD for mapping, tools for surveying and leveling, design of water supply program “LOOP”; should be conducted.  Such Training programs should be on continues bases.  In next training program, all CBMs should be engaged in a separate program; as in presence of their High Ups, CBMs may not confidently participate.  An exposure visit to a scheme must be arranged as part of such training program  Theoretical training content should be supported with more “problematic information” experienced in the field.  In future, training session should not be conducted in the month of May & June; as workload is increased in these months and due to financial year end closing, participants may not spare precious time and pay due attention in training sessions.  Training session daily duration should be from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.; however number of days in a training program may be increased.  Community participation can be taken effectively and water supply scheme may be owned by the community in case bill tariff applied to the scheme is taken as “tariff applicable to agricultural side” instead of imposing commercial tariff to run the scheme. Such policy decision would provide leverage to the community and nice cushion in regard to settle monthly bill payment by them.  Planning really matters. Every management cadre is unanimously agreed that a well planned scheme can turn better results. Participants suggested and requesting to the High Ups that announce the schemes (suppose to be implemented in a year) in initial quarter of working year and let CDU and PHED technical staff sufficient and necessary time to work on with interaction of community and then expect the deliverables otherwise the objective of CDU would go without fruitful results.
  24. 24. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | 11.Emerging Issues 24 11. Emerging Issues  Going through 09 districts in south Punjab region, and having formal as well as informal interaction with the participants comprising of CDU and PHED technical staff; it is apparently seen and in some session; CDU has been somewhat demanding to strengthen coordination skills require to be extended by the PHED technical staff members, in order to generate sense of ownership of CDU in PHED. Community Development Unit somehow showed grievances of being not taken on equally basis into account by PHED technical staff. As being newly inception unit, CDU whole hearted welcome in PHED can strengthen integrated efforts between two wings of the department so that both join hands together towards one sole objective; failing to that may result in deteriorating CDU performance and emergence of sense of inferiority among CDU members.  Due to not having defined and well versed document of TORs to each individual serving PHED at district level; an unseen issue emerges as in most of the districts sub-engineers are entrusted the assignments that are supposed to be performed by the surveyor. This also creates an unbounded burden to one cadre leaving the other cadre from performance management; that also leads to some un-wanted rift between the individuals not being fully conversant to each others TORs.  The Community Development unit is more focused leaving Technical staff members at second place in regard to capacity building activities. In almost every training session, there has been demand from the technical unit to design and conduct a training program specifically focused on SDOs and Sub Engineers. They wish to be engaged in training on design of project scheme (very much relevant to their core work assignments), use of AUTO CAD tool, LOOP program, etc. As seen, JrOs provided comprehensive trainings and Community Development theme is focused (very much relevant to CDU) in this training workshop; translates a message and emerges a need of training program for SDOs and Sub-Engineers seemed to demand.  One of the Executive Engineer was of the view that why community participation is emphasized as for as rural development is concerned. This approach is not adopted in urban development projects. If this approach is very effective; why it is not adopted in rural development schemes of water and sanitation services to the people. First, apply to the urban development then replicate the concept to rural development. The people living in urban sector are more educated and supposed to be more effective to run the schemes on sustainable basis. They are supposed to have more capacity in maintaining the schemes effectively. Such so called discriminated approach in policy decision is required to be changed.  PHED staff seemed complaining that funds are not released well in time; for the reason deliverables can not meet to its realistic interpretation.  Vehicles are not provided and because of this issue PHED staff is of the view, particularly CDU, have been unable to deliver the assignments effectively and efficiently. Unanimously, it has been demand for provision of vehicles to staff in performance of work coherently.  Due to insufficient time provided under contingencies directives where in PHED is supposed to submit the proposal by a day or so; can not deliver the results. Such proposal without sound interaction and survey conducted in haste; obviously can not develop interaction with the community and result is obvious; i.e. the scheme flopped.
  25. 25. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – A: Participants’ Attendance Information 25 Annexure – A: Participants’ Attendance Information Here as under, District wise participants’ attendance percentage is taken who completed the training program. a. District: Muzaffargarh Registered Participants’ Strength: 26 Sr. No Name Designation No. of Day's Attended 1 JAWAD KALEEM ULLAH MALIK SDO Muzaffargarh 03 2 TALIB HUSSAIN Sub Engineer 03 3 SAFDAR HUSSAIN Sub Engineer 03 4 JAVAID MEHMOOD Sub Engineer 03 5 SHAHID NAEEM Sub Engineer 03 6 MUHAMMAD ARSHAD MEHR SDO Kot Addu 03 7 MUHAMMAD ASIF Sub Engineer 03 8 NADEEM HASSAN Sub Engineer 02 9 AKHTER ABBAS Sub Engineer 03 10 QAISAR SHABIR SDO Ali Pur 03 11 RIAZ AHMAD SHAKIR Sub Engineer 03 12 MAZHER SHOAIB Sub Engineer 03 13 EHTSHAM IMAM KAZMI Sub Engineer 03 14 SHOAIB FAYYAZ SDO Jatoi 03 15 ZAFFAR HUSSAIN Sub Engineer 03 16 SHOAIB BILAL Sub Engineer 03 17 SAIF ULLAH MALIK CDO 03 18 FAISAL RAHEEM CBM 03 19 MUHAMMAD ANEES-UR-REHMAN CBM 03 20 ASIF RAZA MALIK CBM 03 21 HINA ISHFAQ CBM 03 22 SUMAIRA ALI CBM 03 23 ZANEET PARVEEN CBM 03 24 MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD CBM 03 25 MUHAMMAD SHAKIR CBM 03 26 MUHAMMAD ABDUL RAHMAN JRO 02 Description Day - 1 Day - 2 Day – 3 Accumulative Attendance 25 25 26 76 Percentage 96.15% 96.15% 100.00% 97.44%
  26. 26. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – A: Participants’ Attendance Information 26 b. District: Layyah Registered Participants’ Strength: 18 Sr. No Name Designation No. of Day's Attended 1 ABDUL MAJEED MERANI SDO Layyah 03 2 AKHTAR ALI Sub Engineer 03 3 WAHEED -UR-REHMAN Sub Engineer 03 4 JAVED AHMED Sub Engineer 03 5 SYED WAQAR ALI SHAH Sub Engineer 03 6 AAMIR MASOOD RIND SDO Karor Lal Eason 03 7 IRSHAD HUSSAIN Sub Engineer 03 8 GHAZANFAR ABBAS Sub Engineer 03 9 ILYAS RAZA Sub Engineer 03 10 NAEEM AHMAD CDO 03 11 SHAZIA PARVEEN CBM 03 12 SUMAIRA AHMAD CBM 03 13 MUHAMMAD ISHFAQ CBM 03 14 MUHAMMAD SANAULLAH CBM 03 15 FAIZ AHMAD CBM 03 16 MUHAMMAD IMRAN ZAKI CBM 03 17 HAFIZA SAIMA GUL JRO 03 18 MUHAMMAD AYUB Executive Engineer 03 Description Day - 1 Day - 2 Day - 3 Accumulative Attendance 18 18 18 54 Percentage 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
  27. 27. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – A: Participants’ Attendance Information 27 c. District: Multan Registered Participants’ Strength: 17 Sr. No Name Designation No. of Day's Attended 1 IQRAR HUSSAIN SDO, Multan 00 2 JAMEEL HAIDER Sub Engineer 03 3 EHSAN ELAHI Sub Engineer 03 4 MUHAMMAD IQBAL Sub Engineer 03 5 AMAAN-UL-ALLAH Sub Engineer 00 6 RAO ABDUL WAHEED SDO Shujabad 01 7 MUHAMMAD ARIF AKRAM Sub Engineer 01 8 MUHAMMAD HASIM Sub Engineer 03 9 RABIA IMRAN CDO 03 10 ASAD ABBASS RAZA CBM 03 11 IMRAN KHALID CBM 03 12 BUSHRA PERVEEN CBM 03 13 MEHREEN GUL CBM 03 14 FARHAT BASHIR CBM 03 15 LUBNA HASSAN CBM 03 16 SHEHAR BANO CBM 03 17 AHSAN SHAH JRO 03 Description Day - 1 Day - 2 Day - 3 Accumulative Attendance 15 13 13 41 Percentage 88.24% 76.47% 76.47% 80.39%
  28. 28. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – A: Participants’ Attendance Information 28 d. District: Dera Ghazi Khan Registered Participants’ Strength: 19 Sr. # Name Designation No. of Day's Attended 1 FATEH ULLAH KHAN DURRANI SDO, DG Khan 02 2 OMAR KHOSA Sub Engineer 03 3 SYED IJAZ HUSSAIN BUKHARI Sub Engineer 03 4 IJAZ AHMAD LEGHARI Sub Engineer 03 5 MUMTAZ AHMAD JASKANI SDO, DG Khan 03 6 LATIF AHMAD KHOSA Sub Engineer 03 7 MALIK HUSSAIN AKHTAR Sub Engineer 03 8 ABDUL HAMEED KHOSA Sub Engineer 03 9 MALIK KHADIM HUSSAIN SDO, Taunsa 03 10 MOHAMMAD NADIR LEGHARI Sub Engineer 02 11 MOHAMMAD MAZHAR FAROOQ Sub Engineer 03 12 MUJAHID HUSSAIN QURESHI Sub Engineer 03 13 SAAD AHMAD KHAN CDO 03 14 GHULAM AKBAR CBM 03 15 MOHAMMAD TARIQ KHAN CBM 03 16 RIAZ HUSSAIN CBM 03 17 SHAZIA BUZDAR CBM 03 18 NAHEED AZIZ CBM 03 19 MOHAMMAD JUNAID YOUNUS JRO 03 Description Day - 1 Day - 2 Day -3 Accumulative Attendance 18 19 18 55 Percentage 94.74% 100.00% 94.74% 96.49%
  29. 29. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – A: Participants’ Attendance Information 29 e. District: Rajan Pur Registered Participants’ Strength: 13 Sr. No Name Designation No. of Day's Attended 1 ABDUL MAJEED MERANI SDO Rajan Pur 02 2 HABIB ULLLAH LEGHARI Sub Engineer 02 3 GHULAM MUJTABA Sub Engineer 03 4 MUJAHID HUSSAIN LASHARI Sub Engineer 03 5 MOHAMMAD KHALID LEGHARI SDO Jam Pur 03 6 TANVEER AHMAD Sub Engineer 02 7 HAJI ALLAH BAKSH Sub Engineer 03 8 INAYAT ULLAH Sub Engineer 02 9 SYED ASIF RAZA CDO 03 10 SYED HAIDER SHAH CBM 03 11 SYED ASIF NAEEM CBM 03 12 MOHAMMAD IMRAN QAMMAR JRO 03 13 IHSAN-UL-HAQ Executive Engineer 02 Description Day - 1 Day - 2 Day -3 Accumulative Attendance 11 11 12 34 Percentage 84.62% 84.62% 92.31% 87.18%
  30. 30. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – A: Participants’ Attendance Information 30 f. District: Rahim Yar Khan Registered Participants’ Strength: 25 Sr. # Name Designaiton No. of Day's Attended 1 ABDUL REHMAN SDO Rahim Yar Khan 03 2 SHEIKH ZAHID HUSSAIN Sub Engineer 01 3 BASHIR AHMAD Sub Engineer 03 4 KHALID HUSSAIN NADEEM Sub Engineer 03 5 RANA MOHAMMAD ALI APE / SDO Sadiqabad 03 6 AMJAD JAVAID Sub Engineer 00 7 MOHAMMAD BILAL Sub Engineer 03 8 UMAIR AKHTAR Sub Engineer 03 9 BASHIR HUSSAIN Sub Engineer 03 10 ASSAD ULLAH APE / SDO Khan Pur 02 11 MUDASSAR ILYAS Sub Engineer 02 12 MOHAMMAD YASIR Sub Engineer 00 13 KALEEM ULLAH Sub Engineer 03 14 HAFIZ RIAZ AHMAD APE / SDO Liaqat Pur 02 15 FAZAL-E-HAQ Sub Engineer 03 16 HAFIZ RASHEED AHMAD Sub Engineer 03 17 SADIA YASMEEN CDO 02 18 REHANA KOUSAR CBM 03 19 GHULAM IRTIZA CBM 03 20 IHSAN-UL-HAQ CBM 03 21 ABDUL QADEER CBM 03 22 NASIR MEHMOOD CBM 03 23 OMARA MUBEEN CBM 02 24 MOHAMMAD BILAL QAMAR JRO 01 25 SYED BAQIR RIFAT GARDEZI Executive Engineer 03 Description Day - 1 02-06-2010 Day - 2 03-06-2010 Day -3 04-06-2010 Accumulative Attendance 21 19 20 60 Percentage 84.00% 76.00% 80.00% 80.00%
  31. 31. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – A: Participants’ Attendance Information 31 g. District: Bahawalpur Registered Participants’ Strength: 25 Sr. # Name Designation No. of Day's Attended 1 MOHAMMAD IMRAN KHAN SDO Bahawalpur 03 2 GULZAR AHMAD Sub Engineer 03 3 ZAHID HUSSAIN Sub Engineer 02 4 KASHIF MAHMOOD Sub Engineer 03 5 MUKHTAR AHMAD SDO Yazman 02 6 GHULAM JAMIL SHAHID Sub Engineer 03 7 ASIM HUSSAIN Sub Engineer 03 8 MOHAMMAD JAMSHAID IQBAL Sub Engineer 01 9 MOHAMMAD SHAFIQUE SIDDIQUE SDO Ahmadpur 03 10 MOHAMMAD HAFIZ-UR-REHMAN Sub Engineer 03 11 MOHAMMAD MUNAWAR Sub Engineer 03 12 NAVEED KHAN Sub Engineer 03 13 ASIM ABBAS RAZA SDO Hasilpur 02 14 MOHAMMAD ASHRAF Sub Engineer 03 15 JAMSHAID ALI Sub Engineer 03 16 WAQAS ZAHEER Sub Engineer 03 17 MOHAMMAD IMRAN CDO 03 18 MOHAMMAD MOHSIN CBM 03 19 MOHAMMAD JUNAID CBM 03 20 REHANA RAMZAN CBM 03 21 NAUSHEEN KANWAL CBM 03 22 ZAREEN KANWAL CBM 03 23 NAUSHABA MAHWISH CBM 03 24 WASEEM SOHAIL JRO 00 25 NAZIR AHMAD CHUGHTAI Executive Engineer 02 Description Day - 1 07-06-2010 Day - 2 08-06-2010 Day - 3 09-06-2010 Accumulative Attendance 22 23 21 66 Percentage 88.00% 92.00% 84.00% 88.00%
  32. 32. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – A: Participants’ Attendance Information 32 h. District: Lodhran Registered Participants’ Strength: 16 Sr. # Name Designation No. of Day's Attended 1 MUZAMIL MAHMOOD MIRZA Executive Engineer 03 2 MOHAMMAD ADNAN NASEEM SDO Lodhran 03 3 IMTIAZ SAEED Sub Engineer 00 4 RASHID KAMRAN Sub Engineer 03 5 MOHAMMAD TARIQ KHAN Sub Engineer 03 6 GHULAM SHABIR SDO Dunya Pur 03 7 QAISER MALIK Sub Engineer 03 8 RANA MOHAMMAD USMAN Sub Engineer 03 9 JAVAID IQBAL BHATTI Sub Engineer 03 10 MAQBOOL AHMAD CDO 03 11 RAO AYAZ AHMAD CBM 03 12 RAO MOHAMMAD ASHRAF CBM 03 13 ABDUL MALIK CBM 03 14 ASLAM NOON CBM 03 15 FOZIA AJMAL CBM 03 16 FAHEEM IQBAL HASHMI JRO 02 Description Day - 1 10-06-2010 Day - 2 11-06-2010 Day -3 12-06-2010 Accumulative Attendance 15 14 15 44 Percentage 93.75% 87.50% 93.75% 91.67%
  33. 33. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – A: Participants’ Attendance Information 33 i. District: Bahawal Nagar Registered Participants’ Strength: 30 Sr. # Name Designation No. of Day's Attended 1 HAFIZ MOHAMMAD AMIN SDO Bhawalnagur 02 2 ISRAR SHAFIQUE Sub Engineer 02 3 MOHAMMAD TAHIR SARDAR Sub Engineer 01 4 AQEEL ABBAS Sub Engineer 02 5 ALI RAZA JAVED Sub Engineer 02 6 MOHAMMAD ASIF KHAN Sub Engineer 02 7 KHUBAIB IRSHAD SDO Haroonabad 02 8 MOHAMMAD RAMZAN JOYA Sub Engineer 02 9 AWAIS MAHMOOD Sub Engineer 02 10 ALI RAZA Sub Engineer 02 11 MOHAMMAD ZAFAR SDO Minchinabad 03 12 MOHAMMAD YASIR SHAHZAD Sub Engineer 02 13 MOHAMMAD NIAZ Sub Engineer 02 14 MAZHAR HUSSAIN SDO Fortabbas 02 15 MOHAMMAD KHALID BASHIR Sub Engineer 02 16 TAHIR FAROOQ Sub Engineer 02 17 KASHIF MAHMOOD Sub Engineer 01 18 AMJAD SALEEM KHAN SDO Chistian 01 19 IMRAN ALI Sub Engineer 02 20 MOHAMMAD NADEEM IQBAL Sub Engineer 01 21 IRFAN AHMAD Sub Engineer 02 22 MOHAMMAD IHSAN DANISH Sub Engineer 01 23 NADEEM ISHAQ CDO 03 24 MOHAMMAD ABDULLAH CBM 02 25 MOHAMMAD AFZAL CBM 03 26 SYED MOHAMMAD AYUB SHAH CBM 03 27 MOHAMMAD RIZWAN CBM 03 28 ASGHAR ALI CBM 03 29 ZAFAR IQBAL CBM 03 30 MOHAMMAD SHOAIB MAHMOOD JRO 03 Description Day - 1 16-06-2010 Day - 2 17-06-2010 Day - 3 18-06-2010 Accumulative Attendance 17 27 19 63 Percentage 56.67% 90.00% 63.33% 70.00%
  34. 34. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment 34 Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment District: Muzaffargarh Number of Participants: 26 Session Question Pertains to Pre-Test Post Test (+/-)%. Level of understanding Correct Answer Incorrect Answer Correct Answer Wrong Communication Skills Barriers in Communication 3 23 10 16 27% Definition 10 16 15 11 19% Community Participation Definition – Community 1 25 8 18 27% Structure of Participatory Dev. 1 25 10 16 35% Basic Principals of Participation 14 12 19 7 19% Project Cycle Management No. of Phases in PCM 5 21 20 6 58% No. of Activities in PCM 7 19 20 6 50% Right Based Approach Abbreviation - UDHR 0 26 2 24 8% Difference – Right & Responsibility 1 25 5 21 15% Team Work Characteristics of Effective Team 10 16 14 12 15% 4 C’s of Effective Team 1 25 10 16 35% Vision Definition – Gender 0 26 3 23 12% No. of Services of PHED 0 26 6 20 23% MDG relevant to PHED 3 23 15 11 46% Characteristics of Vision 0 26 8 18 31% Pre-Test overall rating of correct responses to questions = 14% Post-Test overall rating of correct responses to questions = 42% Overall Learning Enhanced after concluding workshop = 28%
  35. 35. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment 35 District: Muzaffargarh Before Training Self-assessment of Knowledge and Skills Related to: After Training a b c d e a b c d e 04 08 09 02 03 Introduction 00 00 00 13 13 04 03 12 06 01 Right Based Approach 00 01 04 11 10 05 09 05 05 02 Vision 00 00 01 10 15 04 04 09 07 02 Community Participation 00 00 02 09 15 04 05 07 07 03 Role of Responsibilities of PHED Staff 00 00 01 10 15 02 06 05 10 03 Activities in Water Supply and Sanitation Scheme and Project Cycle Management 00 01 01 10 14 01 03 11 09 02 Communication Skills 00 00 01 13 12 03 03 09 08 03 Team Work 00 00 01 07 18 27 41 67 54 19 Total Responses 0 2 11 83 112 13% 20% 32% 26% 9% Percentage 0% 1% 5% 40% 54% It reveals that before training, in 08 sessions, 27 responses on LOW level of learning; turned to upper level. It means that 135 upto Medium level of learning converted to High & b/w Medium and High raising figure to upto 195 at higher degree of learning after the training. Further such analysis reflects that: i. 33% of the participants estimating their knowledge and skills between the level of Low and Medium before training; reduced to 32% after training. ii. 40% achieved the level of competency between Medium and High; raised from 26% before training. iii. It is significant that 54% rated their knowledge as High after training. This figure jumped from 09% covering the difference of 45% whereas post-test result shows 42% correct responses in quantitative terms are received from the participants. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1 2 3 4 5 Before Training After Training Here, graphical representation is provided on the data compiled upon the responses received as per over all “Self Assessment of Knowledge and Skills” from the participants. The Red bar shows “Before training learning” where as Green bar reflects “After training learning” demonstration.
  36. 36. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment 36 District: Layyah Number of Participants: 18 Session Question Pertains to Pre-Test Post Test (+/-)%. Level of understanding Correct Answer Incorrect Answer Correct Answer Wrong Communication Skills Barriers in Communication 3 15 10 8 39% Definition 15 3 15 7 0% Community Participation Definition – Community 1 17 14 4 72% Structure of Participatory Dev. 2 16 11 7 50% Basic Principals of Participation 14 4 14 4 0% Project Cycle Management No. of Phases in PCM 5 13 16 2 61% No. of Activities in PCM 5 13 18 0 72% Right Based Approach Abbreviation - UDHR 0 18 15 3 83% Difference – Right & Responsibility 0 18 12 6 67% Team Work Characteristics of Effective Team 7 11 12 6 28% 4 C’s of Effective Team 0 18 12 6 67% Vision Definition – Gender 0 18 3 15 17% No. of Services of PHED 1 17 10 8 50% MDG relevant to PHED 0 18 14 4 78% Characteristics of Vision 0 18 8 10 44% Pre-Test overall rating of correct responses to questions = 20% Post-Test overall rating of correct responses to questions = 68% Overall Learning Enhanced after concluding workshop = 49%
  37. 37. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment 37 District: Layyah Before Training Self-assessment of Knowledge and Skills Related to: After Training a b c d e a b c d e 03 01 09 04 01 Introduction 00 00 00 07 11 06 03 04 05 00 Right Based Approach 00 00 02 10 06 04 04 01 05 04 Vision 00 00 01 04 13 03 02 05 06 02 Community Participation 00 00 01 08 09 04 04 03 03 04 Role of Responsibilities of PHED Staff 00 00 00 05 13 04 04 04 04 02 Activities in Water Supply and Sanitation Scheme and Project Cycle Management 00 01 01 04 12 04 01 06 04 03 Communication Skills 00 00 00 05 13 03 02 02 08 03 Team Work 00 00 00 04 14 31 21 34 39 19 Total Responses 0 1 5 47 91 22% 15% 24% 27% 13% Percentage 0% 1% 3% 33% 63% It reveals that before training, in 08 sessions, 31 responses on LOW level of learning; turned to upper level. It means that 86 upto Medium level of learning converted to High & b/w Medium and High raising figure to upto 91 at higher degree of learning after the training. Further such analysis reflects that: i. 37% of the participants estimating their knowledge and skills between the level of Low and Medium before training; reduced to 01% after training. ii. 33% achieved the level of competency between Medium and High; raised from 27% before training. iii. It is significant that 63% rated their knowledge as High after training. This figure jumped from 13% covering the difference of 50% whereas post-test analysis suggest the overall learning after training ranges to 49%; which approaches participants’ own self-assessment as well. 0 20 40 60 80 100 a b c d e Before Training After TrainingHere, graphical representation is provided on the data compiled upon the responses received as per over all “Self Assessment of Knowledge and Skills” from the participants. The Purple bar shows “Before training learning” where as Green bar reflects “After training learning” demonstration.
  38. 38. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment 38 District: Multan Number of Participants: 15 Session Question Pertains to Pre-Test Post Test (+/-)%. Level of understanding Correct Answer Incorrect Answer Correct Answer Wrong Communication Skills Barriers in Communication 1 14 13 2 80% Definition 1 14 7 8 40% Community Participation Definition – Community 11 4 14 1 67% Structure of Participatory Dev. 4 11 11 4 67% Basic Principals of Participation 1 14 12 3 7% Project Cycle Management No. of Phases in PCM 7 8 14 1 47% No. of Activities in PCM 4 11 9 6 33% Right Based Approach Abbreviation - UDHR 4 11 12 3 80% Difference – Right & Responsibility 0 15 11 4 47% Team Work Characteristics of Effective Team 11 4 12 3 7% 4 C’s of Effective Team 0 15 12 3 80% Vision Definition – Gender 3 12 12 3 73% No. of Services of PHED 3 12 8 7 47% MDG relevant to PHED 1 14 14 1 73% Characteristics of Vision 1 14 8 7 33% Pre-Test overall rating of correct responses to questions = 23% Post-Test overall rating of correct responses to questions = 75% Overall Learning Enhanced after concluding workshop = 52%
  39. 39. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment 39 District: Multan Before Training Self-assessment of Knowledge and Skills Related to: After Training a b c d e a b c d e 02 05 06 02 00 Introduction 00 01 01 04 09 03 05 07 00 00 Right Based Approach 00 01 02 05 07 05 06 03 01 00 Vision 00 01 01 06 07 01 03 08 01 02 Community Participation 01 00 01 02 11 02 04 04 04 01 Role of Responsibilities of PHED Staff 00 01 00 03 11 00 08 05 02 00 Activities in Water Supply and Sanitation Scheme and Project Cycle Management 00 01 01 04 09 02 03 05 04 01 Communication Skills 01 00 02 04 08 03 03 06 02 01 Team Work 00 01 00 02 12 18 37 44 16 5 Total Responses 2 6 8 30 74 15% 31% 37% 13% 4% Percentage 2% 5% 7% 25% 62% It reveals that before training, in 08 sessions, 18 responses on LOW level of learning; reduced to only 02 in low. It means that 81 upto Medium level of learning converted to High & b/w Medium and High raising figure to upto 74. Further such analysis reflects that: i. 46% of the participants estimating their knowledge and skills between the level of Low and Medium before training; reduced to 34% after training. ii. 25% achieved the level of competency between Medium and High; raised from 13% iii. It is significant that 62% rated their knowledge as High after training. This figure jumped from 04% leaving the difference as 58% whereas post-test analysis suggest the overall learning after training ranges to 52%; which is comparatively in lines with participants’ self-assessment. 0 20 40 60 80 a b c d e Before Training After Training a = Low; b = b/w Low & Medium c = Medium d = b/w Medium & High e = High Here, graphical representation is provided on the data compiled upon the responses received as per over all “Self Assessment of Knowledge and Skills” from the participants. The Blue bar shows “Before training learning” where as Green bar reflects “After training learning” demonstration.
  40. 40. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment 40 District: Dera Ghazi Khan Number of Participants: 18 Session Question Pertains to Pre-Test Post Test (+/-)%. Level of understanding Correct Answer Incorrect Answer Correct Answer Wrong Communication Skills Barriers in Communication 1 17 16 2 83% Definition 1 17 10 8 50% Community Participation Definition – Community 4 14 17 1 72% Structure of Participatory Dev. 1 17 14 4 72% Basic Principals of Participation 11 7 15 3 22% Project Cycle Management No. of Phases in PCM 7 11 17 1 56% No. of Activities in PCM 4 14 12 6 44% Right Based Approach Abbreviation - UDHR 0 18 15 3 83% Difference – Right & Responsibility 4 14 14 4 56% Team Work Characteristics of Effective Team 11 7 15 3 22% 4 C’s of Effective Team 0 18 15 3 83% Vision Definition – Gender 1 17 15 3 78% No. of Services of PHED 1 17 11 7 56% MDG relevant to PHED 3 15 17 1 78% Characteristics of Vision 3 15 11 7 44% Pre-Test overall rating of correct responses to questions = 19% Post-Test overall rating of correct responses to questions = 79% Learning Enhanced after concluding workshop = 60%
  41. 41. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment 41 District: Dera Ghazi Khan Before Training Self-assessment of Knowledge and Skills Related to: After Training a b c d e a b c d e 07 04 07 00 00 Introduction 00 00 00 04 14 08 03 04 03 00 Right Based Approach 00 00 00 04 14 07 03 06 02 00 Vision 00 00 00 04 14 08 04 04 01 01 Community Participation 00 00 00 04 14 08 04 04 01 01 Role of Responsibilities of PHED Staff 00 00 00 03 15 08 02 05 03 00 Activities in Water Supply and Sanitation Scheme and Project Cycle Management 00 00 00 02 16 11 01 03 03 00 Communication Skills 00 00 00 02 16 13 03 01 01 00 Team Work 00 00 00 03 15 70 24 34 14 2 Total Responses 0 0 0 26 118 49% 17% 24% 10% 1% Percentage 0% 0% 0% 18% 82% It reveals that before training, in 08 sessions, 70 responses on LOW level of learning; all converted to High and between medium and high. Further such analysis reflects that: It is significant that 82% rated their knowledge as High after training, accumulating 51% between low and medium-low ranges. The post test overall shows 62% in knowledge increase after conduct of training. Having difference between Medium – High and High rating as shown above; very much justifies the rating as 64% close to the pre/post test analysis. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 a b c d e Before Training After Training a = Low; b = b/w Low & Medium c = Medium d = b/w Medium & High e = High Here, graphical representation is provided on the data compiled upon the responses received as per over all “Self Assessment of Knowledge and Skills” from the participants. The Blue bar shows “Before training learning” where as Green bar reflects “After training learning” demonstration.
  42. 42. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment 42 District: Rajan Pur Number of Participants: 12 Session Question Pertains to Pre-Test Post Test (+/-)%. Level of understanding Correct Answer Incorrect Answer Correct Answer Wrong Communication Skills Barriers in Communication 1 7 7 5 50% Definition 2 6 6 6 33% Community Participation Definition – Community 2 6 10 2 67% Structure of Participatory Dev. 0 8 5 7 42% Basic Principals of Participation 6 2 6 6 Static Project Cycle Management No. of Phases in PCM 2 6 5 7 25% No. of Activities in PCM 3 5 5 7 17% Right Based Approach Abbreviation - UDHR 0 8 8 4 67% Difference – Right & Responsibility 0 8 7 5 58% Team Work Characteristics of Effective Team 3 5 8 4 42% 4 C’s of Effective Team 2 6 8 4 50% Vision Definition – Gender 0 8 6 6 50% No. of Services of PHED 2 6 6 6 33% MDG relevant to PHED 0 8 7 5 58% Characteristics of Vision 1 7 9 3 67% Pre-Test overall rating of correct responses to questions = 13% Post-Test overall rating of correct responses to questions = 57% Overall Learning Enhanced after concluding workshop = 44%
  43. 43. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment 43 District: Rajan Pur Before Training Self-assessment of Knowledge and Skills Related to: After Training a b c d e a b c d e 05 01 05 01 00 Introduction 00 00 00 07 05 05 01 04 01 01 Right Based Approach 00 00 00 05 07 05 02 03 01 01 Vision 00 00 00 05 07 04 02 04 02 00 Community Participation 00 00 00 06 06 05 01 04 01 01 Role of Responsibilities of PHED Staff 00 00 00 05 07 05 01 04 01 01 Activities in Water Supply and Sanitation Scheme and Project Cycle Management 00 00 00 06 06 05 01 03 03 00 Communication Skills 00 00 00 05 07 05 01 04 02 00 Team Work 00 00 00 05 07 39 10 31 12 04 Total Responses 00 00 00 44 52 It reveals that before training, in 08 sessions, 39 responses on LOW level of learning; reduced to zero in low. It means that 40.60% all converted to High & b/w Medium and High. Further such analysis reflects that: i. 10% of the participants estimating their knowledge and skills between the level of Low and Medium before training; enhanced their knowledge vide which all converted to next higher category of learning. ii. 46% achieved the level of competency between Medium and High; raised from 32% iii. It is significant that 54% rated their knowledge as High after training. This figure jumped from 4% leaving the difference as 50%. It somehow in range of the net percentage achieved through Pre- Test & Post Test analysis. 0 20 40 60 a b c d e Before Training After Training a = Low; b = b/w Low & Medium c = Medium d = b/w Medium & High e = High Here, graphical representation is provided on the data compiled upon the responses received as per over all “Self Assessment of Knowledge and Skills” from the participants. In conclusion, analysis on application of both evaluating instruments: i.e. pre/post test and overall participants’ opinion in achieving enhanced level of competency on knowledge, skills and demonstrated behaviour; consistent results.
  44. 44. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment 44 District: Rahim Yar Khan Number of Participants: 23 Session Question Pertains to Pre-Test Post Test (+/-)%. Level of understanding Correct Answer Incorrect Answer Correct Answer Wrong Communication Skills Barriers in Communication 0.5 22.5 17 6 72% Definition 10 13 19 4 39% Community Participation Definition – Community 2 21 17 6 65% Structure of Participatory Dev. 0.5 22.5 12 11 50% Basic Principals of Participation 11 12 11 12 0% Project Cycle Management No. of Phases in PCM 8 15 12 11 17% No. of Activities in PCM 4 19 12 11 35% Right Based Approach Abbreviation - UDHR 0 23 8 15 35% Difference – Right & Responsibility 0.5 22.5 13 10 54% Team Work Characteristics of Effective Team 0 23 10 13 43% 4 C’s of Effective Team 1.5 21.5 16 7 63% Vision Definition – Gender 0 23 15 8 65% No. of Services of PHED 0 23 15 8 65% MDG relevant to PHED 0 23 13 10 57% Characteristics of Vision 0 23 17 6 74% Pre-Test overall rating of correct responses to questions = 11% Post-Test overall rating of correct responses to questions = 60% Overall Learning Enhanced after concluding workshop = 49%
  45. 45. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment 45 District: Rahim Yar Khan Before Training Self-assessment of Knowledge and Skills Related to: After Training a b c d e a b c d e 11 04 02 02 04 Introduction 02 00 01 08 12 12 05 03 02 01 Right Based Approach 02 00 01 13 07 10 03 06 03 01 Vision 02 00 01 12 08 11 00 02 07 03 Community Participation 02 00 01 04 16 11 02 04 03 03 Role of Responsibilities of PHED Staff 02 00 00 09 12 11 04 04 02 02 Activities in Water Supply and Sanitation Scheme and Project Cycle Management 02 00 00 14 07 11 01 05 04 02 Communication Skills 02 00 00 09 12 12 01 03 03 04 Team Work 02 00 00 06 15 89 20 29 26 20 Total Responses 16 0 4 75 89 It reveals that before training, in 08 sessions, 89 responses on LOW level of learning; reduced to 16 in low. It means that 48% all converted to High & b/w Medium and High by leaving only 16% on LOW side after the training. Further such analysis reflects that: i. 11% of the participants estimating their knowledge and skills between the level of Low and Medium before training; enhanced their knowledge vide which all converted to next higher category of learning; by leaving nothing between low and medium after training. ii. 41% achieved the level of competency between Medium and High; raised from 14% iii. It is significant that 48% rated their knowledge as High after training. This figure jumped from 11% leaving the difference as 39% whereas post-test analysis suggest the overall learning after training ranges to 49%. 0 20 40 60 80 100 a b c d e Before Training After Training a = Low; b = b/w Low & Medium c = Medium d = b/w Medium & High e = High Here, graphical representation is provided on the data compiled upon the responses received as per over all “Self Assessment of Knowledge and Skills” from the participants. In conclusion, analysis on application of both evaluating instruments: i.e. pre/post test and overall participants’ opinion in achieving enhanced level of competency on knowledge, skills and demonstrated behaviour; consistent results.
  46. 46. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment 46 District: Bahawalpur Number of Participants: 21 Session Question Pertains to Pre-Test Post Test (+/-)%. Level of understanding Correct Answer Incorrect Answer Correct Answer Wrong Communication Skills Barriers in Communication 0 21 19 2 90% Definition 5 16 18 3 62% Community Participation Definition – Community 7 14 20 1 62% Structure of Participatory Dev. 0 21 15 6 71% Basic Principals of Participation 7 14 18 3 52% Project Cycle Management No. of Phases in PCM 5 16 20 1 71% No. of Activities in PCM 5 16 20 1 71% Right Based Approach Abbreviation - UDHR 0 21 16 5 76% Difference – Right & Responsibility 3 18 20 1 81% Team Work Characteristics of Effective Team 0 21 16 5 76% 4 C’s of Effective Team 0 21 18 3 86% Vision Definition – Gender 0 21 16 5 76% No. of Services of PHED 4 17 18 3 67% MDG relevant to PHED 0 21 21 0 100% Characteristics of Vision 0 21 17 4 81% Pre-Test overall rating of correct responses to questions = 11% Post-Test overall rating of correct responses to questions = 86% Overall Learning Enhanced after concluding workshop = 75%
  47. 47. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment 47 District: Bahawalpur Before Training Self-assessment of Knowledge and Skills Related to: After Training a b c d e a b c d e 02 01 07 10 00 Introduction 00 00 01 07 11 02 06 08 03 01 Right Based Approach 00 00 01 11 08 01 06 02 07 04 Vision 00 00 00 10 10 01 02 05 09 03 Community Participation 00 00 00 06 14 01 03 06 05 05 Role of Responsibilities of PHED Staff 00 00 00 07 13 01 03 06 06 04 Activities in Water Supply and Sanitation Scheme and Project Cycle Management 00 00 02 08 10 01 03 05 08 03 Communication Skills 00 00 03 03 14 01 03 02 10 04 Team Work 00 00 00 05 15 10 27 41 58 24 Total Responses 0 0 7 57 95 6% 17% 26% 36% 15% Percentage 0% 0% 4% 36% 60% It reveals that before training, in 08 sessions, 78 responses from LOW to Medium level of learning; turned to upper level. It means that 64 converted to Medium and High level of learning after conduct of training. Further such analysis reflects that: i. All 23% of the participants estimating their knowledge and skills between the level of Low and Medium before training; rated to Medium and High level of learning after training . ii. It is significant that 60% rated their knowledge as High after training. This figure jumped from 15% covering the difference of 50% whereas post-test result shows 75% correct responses in quantitative terms; which reflect the participants’ optimistic approach in self-learning evaluation from the participants. 0 20 40 60 80 100 a b c d e Before Training After TrainingHere, graphical representation is provided on the data compiled upon the responses received as per over all “Self Assessment of Knowledge and Skills” from the participants. The Red bar shows “Before training learning” where as Green bar reflects “After training learning” demonstration.
  48. 48. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment 48 District: Lodhran Number of Participants: Session Question Pertains to Pre-Test Post Test (+/-)%. Level of understanding Correct Answer Incorrect Answer Correct Answer Wrong Communication Skills Barriers in Communication 3 12 5 10 13% Definition 6 9 11 4 33% Community Participation Definition – Community 1 14 12 3 73% Structure of Participatory Dev. 0 15 5 10 33% Basic Principals of Participation 10 5 11 4 7% Project Cycle Management No. of Phases in PCM 4 11 13 2 60% No. of Activities in PCM 7 8 12 3 33% Right Based Approach Abbreviation - UDHR 0 15 13 2 87% Difference – Right & Responsibility 2 13 12 3 67% Team Work Characteristics of Effective Team 0 15 8 7 53% 4 C’s of Effective Team 1 14 7 8 40% Vision Definition – Gender 0 15 10 5 67% No. of Services of PHED 2 13 8 7 40% MDG relevant to PHED 0 15 8 7 53% Characteristics of Vision 0 15 10 5 67% Pre-Test overall rating of correct responses to questions = 16% Post-Test overall rating of correct responses to questions = 64% Overall Learning Enhanced after concluding workshop = 48.44%
  49. 49. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment 49 District: Lodhran Before Training Self-assessment of Knowledge and Skills Related to: After Training a b c d e a b c d e 02 01 03 05 03 Introduction 00 00 01 07 06 03 02 00 08 01 Right Based Approach 00 00 00 08 06 02 02 04 04 02 Vision 00 00 00 05 09 02 00 01 06 05 Community Participation 00 00 00 05 09 02 01 01 06 04 Role of Responsibilities of PHED Staff 00 00 01 04 09 03 01 01 05 04 Activities in Water Supply and Sanitation Scheme and Project Cycle Management 00 00 00 07 07 02 00 01 07 04 Communication Skills 00 00 00 05 09 02 00 02 04 06 Team Work 00 00 00 03 11 18 7 13 45 29 Total Responses 0 0 2 44 66 16% 6% 12% 40% 26% Percentage 0% 0% 2% 39% 59% It reveals that before training, in 08 sessions, 38 responses on LOW to Medium level of learning; turned to upper level. It means that 83 upto Medium level of learning converted to High & b/w Medium and High raising figure to upto 110 at higher degree of learning after the training. Further such analysis reflects that: i. 34% of the participants estimating their knowledge and skills between the level of Low and Medium before training; turned to 39 upto Medium to Higher level of learning after training. ii. It is significant that 59% rated their knowledge as High after training. This figure jumped from 26%. Whereas in post test analysis participants estimated their learning as 64%. 0 20 40 60 80 a b c d e Before Training After TrainingHere, graphical representation is provided on the data compiled upon the responses received as per over all “Self Assessment of Knowledge and Skills” from the participants. The Red bar shows “Before training learning” where as Green bar reflects “After training learning” demonstration.
  50. 50. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment 50 District: Bahawal Nagar Number of Participants: Session Question Pertains to Pre-Test Post Test (+/-)%. Level of understanding Correct Answer Incorrect Answer Correct Answer Wrong Communication Skills Barriers in Communication 2 13 7 8 33% Definition 9 6 9 6 0% Community Participation Definition – Community 7 8 15 0 53% Structure of Participatory Dev. 0 15 5 10 33% Basic Principals of Participation 15 0 15 0 0% Project Cycle Management No. of Phases in PCM 6 9 13 2 47% No. of Activities in PCM 3 12 14 1 73% Right Based Approach Abbreviation - UDHR 1 14 14 1 87% Difference – Right & Responsibility 5 10 14 1 60% Team Work Characteristics of Effective Team 0 15 10 5 67% 4 C’s of Effective Team 0 15 9 6 60% Vision Definition – Gender 2 13 14 1 80% No. of Services of PHED 9 6 14 1 33% MDG relevant to PHED 0 15 11 4 73% Characteristics of Vision 1 14 8 7 47% Pre-Test overall rating of correct responses to questions = 27% Post-Test overall rating of correct responses to questions = 76% Overall Learning Enhanced after concluding workshop = 49%
  51. 51. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – B: Participant’s Learning Assessment 51 District: Bahawal Nagar Before Training Self-assessment of Knowledge and Skills Related to: After Training a b c d E a b c d e 02 05 03 02 03 Introduction 01 00 01 05 08 00 07 05 02 01 Right Based Approach 00 01 01 06 07 00 07 05 03 00 Vision 00 00 01 05 09 00 04 08 02 01 Community Participation 00 00 00 05 10 00 04 09 02 00 Role of Responsibilities of PHED Staff 00 00 00 03 12 02 03 05 05 00 Activities in Water Supply and Sanitation Scheme and Project Cycle Management 00 00 00 07 08 00 06 05 02 02 Communication Skills 00 00 01 06 08 00 04 05 05 01 Team Work 00 00 00 02 13 4 40 45 23 8 Total Responses 1 1 4 39 75 3% 33% 38% 19% 7% Percentage 1% 1% 3% 33% 63% It reveals that before training, in 08 sessions, it is very interesting 89 responses from LOW to Medium category level of learning; turned to higher level. It means that 109 converted to High & b/w Medium and High raising figure to upto 114 at higher degree of learning after the training. Further such analysis reflects that: i. 33% of the participants estimating their knowledge and skills between the level of Low and Medium before training; reduced to 32% after training. ii. 33% achieved the level of competency between Medium and High; raised from 19% before training. iii. It is significant that 63% rated their knowledge as High after training. This figure jumped from 07% covering the difference of 56% whereas post-test result shows 49% correct responses in quantitative terms are received from the participants; reveals that within range of both qualitative and quantitative analysis of participants’ learning outcome. Here, graphical representation is provided on the data compiled upon the responses received as per over all “Self Assessment of Knowledge and Skills” from the participants. The Red bar shows “Before training learning” where as Green bar reflects “After training learning” demonstration 0 20 40 60 80 a b c d e Before Training After Training
  52. 52. Training Workshop for PHED and CDU Staff | Annexure – C: Workshop Glimpses 52 Annexure – C: Workshop Glimpses

×