Panels and Post-Evals
behind the
scenes
Michelle Russell Editor in Chief
mrussell@pcma.org
Two industry standards in need of overhauling.
M
Global All Over
Fasten your seatbelt as we circle the globe in this issue, from our cover and CMP Series story on understanding cultural norms when planning interna- tional events (p. 44), to Executive Editor Christopher Durso’s first installment in a series about the American Society of Civil Engineers’ plans to meet in Panama next year during the Panama Canal’s centennial (p. 57), to our One on One with globetrotter Sir Richard Branson (p. 65), to Senior Editor Barbara Palmer’s interview with Convening Leaders 2014 General Session speaker and multi- culturalist/futurist Mike Walsh (p. 73).
y mind is trained to seize on brand-new, innovative conferences, so when I began reading humorist Baratunde Thurston’s “One More Thing” column in the
September issue ofFast Company (
convn.org/panelcon) — in which he introduces “the one conference that will fix all the rest” — I thought for a half-second that his “PanelCon 2014” might be an actual event. Once Thurston gets into promot- ing the content of this conference, “dedicated to the science and art of the conference panel,” it becomes obvious that he’s poking fun at this education- program staple — and that he’s either been on or attended too many panels of the easily assembled, without-much- thought variety. Here’s his pitch for a PanelCon “session” on the typical Q&A segment: “If you’ve planned your panel correctly, there should be no need to wade into the mass of flesh known as the audience for their inevitably asi- nine opinions. Discover tricks to feign concern for the thoughts of the unlit and unamplified while maximizing the social media lift they can provide to your greatness.” Thurston’s dim (and droll) view of one common meeting feature made me think of another: post-con evaluations. That’s because the results of our most recent survey on attendee and exhibi- tor ROI (p. 69) reveal that the way most meeting professionals measure the value participants get out of their overall experience also needs fixing. Eighty percent of our respondents send out post-event evaluations, but only a minority go beyond collecting the usual satisfaction ratings. I shared these results with Marion Mayer, a senior manager at Munich-
8 PCMA CONVENE SEPTEMBER 2013
based FairControl, which evaluates the value of live events, to get her perspec- tive. She wrote back that post-event evaluations have a number of short- comings. What “is often ignored,” she pointed out, “is that some questions cannot be answered if you only survey the actual attendees — as they have obviously made their decision to attend before the event.” It would be insight- ful if you complemented an attendee survey with a non-attendee survey, she said, so “you also learn more about the reasons why you lose a specific target group (non-attendees) and learn more about their expectations.” And you “cannot ask an exhibitor
directly after an event what his business outcome eventually is,” she said, because “new business develops over time.” For educational events, Mayer said, “it definitely makes sense to measure the effect of learning/new knowledge on business performance,” which can- not be captured with a post-evaluation alone. “A systematic approach is needed,” she said, “that defines learn- ing outcomes, places mind-triggers [to help] people to recap what they have learned, and in the end measures pre-defined outcomes of the education, looking at the performance on the job.” Both panels and post-event evalu- ations used to be no-brainers. But they require rethinking if they are to yield more value to participants and planners.
.
PCMA.ORG
PHOTO BY JACOB SLATON
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108