Leader: Keren Winterford

Key Points:

We talked about some limits or challenges for learning:
• No cialis online support time for evaluation
generic viagra online •

Evaluation at http://canadianpharmacy-storerx.com/ the end (“tacked on the end”)
• Busyness
• Managers not being involved
• Often strategy/planning (higher level) org processes, different to true frames of projects: learning can’t buy cialis online fit into higher level org objectives – cheap pharmacy trustedonline-maxpharma learning can’t influence this level
• Reporting (formal) eg; Quarterly reports – people don’t like writing them (“creative writing”) trusted online pharmacy and people reading don’t viagra online get what they need/want
• Question: evaluation needs to be able to change projects, (how to canadian pharmacy online viagra and cancer do this?)
• Often evaluators have different language and hard to connect with
• Cycles of funding
• Educate managers of the importance of learning

We talked about some

great ways to support learning:
• Action learning
• Structured time

for reflection in project management
• viagra risks Lessons learned methodology
• Using case studies (tight, http://buycialisonline-topstore.com/ structured formats) and peer reviews
• Structured process for doing something of canadian pharmacy victoza ‘evaluation learning’ viagra over the counter (ie. viagrasuperactiveforce.com Process of a response and changed practice as a result of evaluation)
• viagra genericcialis-cheaprxstore interactions Engagement of managers in reflection and learning process
• Having workshop/reflection meetings (everyone in the room)
• Practice continuous change
• Feedback loop to senior management
• Focus learning processes

not como funciona la viagra just

on participants (beneficiaries) but on practitioners
• Trust important to share the full story (including failures)
• Right balance of measurement and learning (we need both) – make measurement stuff easy and quicker so we can focus parrot on viagra joke on learning
•

alcohol and cialis There is intuition in learning- ‘trust ourselves’
• Monitoring is a part of the process
• Establish process and structure of evaluation from the start
• Need flexibility for learning
• Partnerships are becoming increasingly important and important for learning (design can you mix viagra and cialis as part of)
• Need to structure/enable staff to have self reflective learning process
• There is a need to recognise interactive nature of projects and evaluation
• Be more creative and innovative in pharmacy programs in canada “reporting”, ie; not a report, but also videos, pictures, workshops, opportunity for conversation (through workshops)
• Use of cialis adcirca extended evaluators, yes, not necessarily objective, but they offer a neutral, safe place canadianpharmacy-rxedtop.com for participants/stakeholders to really share
• Recognise not an evaluation should be to change a

project (next phase) and then to set up an evaluation (at the start of next phase) and then to know as part

of the implementation the evaluation will then need to be revised as new knowing viagraonline-topstorerx it gained, branded viagra therefore, interactive process of doing and evaluating
• Its complex and iteractive

Participants: Scott cheapcialisdosage-norx.com McKenry http://cialisonline-rxtopstore.com/ (NCS Swinburne), Elle Morrell (MEFL), Beth Hyland, pharmacy online Candyce Presland, Maxine Schache, Diane Nichols, Cathy Wills (Swinburne)

Key Points: (INSERT PICTURE)

How do we evaluate domperidone online pharmacy impact of training programs http://canadianpharmacy-storerx.com/ over time?

http://cialisotc-bestnorxpharma.com/

Funders and “deliverers” http://buyviagraonline-rxstore.com/ of programs need to have more conversations how to differentiate fake viagra about long-term evaluations:
– http://cialisonline-onlinebestrx.com/ what do each need?
– how can http://genericviagracanada-helprx.com/ natural form of cialis once daily viagra they connect?

What partnerships need to http://mexicanonlinepharmacy-norx.com/ be

formed? What relationships need viagra and the refractory period to be credited?

Recognise that we need to move beyond evaluation viagra sheets at end buy cialis online free viagrageneric-edtop shipping of

training

If you want how does viagra make you feel to grapefruit and cialis involve participants in evaluations, you need how viagra does work to cheap viagra fast shipping train them, get viagra generic sildenafil price target them excited viagra viagra 50mg vs 100mg vs cialis by

how long does viagra take to kick in it as a practice. Makes them more amenable to being ‘evaluated’.

Some trustedonline-maxpharma.com of us

already doing cialis discount coupons this:
– DPI (Farmer CD)
– ACF (GreenHome)
– NCS (Carbon Accounting ??)

Leader: Jess Dart

Participants: Julia Davies, Sue Arendt, Scott McKenny, Maxine Schache, Carolyn online viagra Kabore, Lisa Goeman

Key Viagra Points:

• Dangers:
1. Idea is that some programs that are in the generic cialis online early stages

of development, working canadian pharmacy out and trying different options – then predetermined indicators

may ‘squash’ innovation. Evaluating a program a whole range of new ideas could

lortab online pharmacy stifle creativity, eg; picking 25mg viagra for performance anxiety winners and losers too early viagra cialis online on
2. Danger of mandating evaluation of everything – mindset that evaluation is critical and essential. But funnily enough, this abrams cialis 30 day supply royal pharmacy is often done at the expense of ‘diluting’ evaluation money comprar cialis and getting very poor quality evaluation – not everything needs evaluating
3. Focus evaluation canadian board pharmacy on where learning can inform decisions best

over the counter viagra

– occur – multiple phase
4. viagra purchase online Is it worth evaluating when costs exceed benefits? Eg; pharmacy license canada calculating attributable impacts to one particular program may cost more than cost of program!
5. Concept of evaluability assessment
online pharmacy tech buy tadalafil online programs florida buy buy generic cialis online viagra online

6. order viagra Focus evaluation http://viagraonline-edstore.com/ on what you want to know
7. Don’t do evaluation when you have nothing to learn from the answers of when you have no ideas of what you

want to know. Don’t do evaluation when it is not worth how to spot fake viagra pills it.
8. economy pharmacy Why do we buycialisonline-treated collect buy viagra with a prescription online data that what is viagra professional is never looked at best viagra pills and never used and of poor quality?
9. cialis + viagra Potentially

steroids viagra we could have ‘levels’ of cialis vs cialis soft evaluation – from rxonlinepharmacy-avoided.com very light

to intensive. Focus evaluation resources where poor mans my canadian pharmacy viagra they can have most results
10. Don’t evaluate a project when viagra vs cialis its been evaluated to death
11. Need to always ask why we are evaluating – what is the purpose?

Eg; when a project has really failed and everyone Cialis cost knows why it has not worked. What’s the point?

12. Focus more on using evaluation results.

Participants: (It ebbed and flowed – quite a few bumblebees!)

Key Points:

• The workshop was about buy viagra with a prescription online http://pharmacy-genericrx-online.com/ exploring “lessons from the

Dancing Guy” (Derek Sivers – YouTube) and the wave theory (AKA diffusion of innovation). I generic http://viagraprofessional-100mg.com/ viagra reviews opened discussion with online canadian anabolic online pharmacy pharmacy 2 examples – sustainable

events work http://viagravscialis-topmeds.com/ and designing a pilot shopping centre sustainability project; and how pharmacycanada-rxedtop.com I was trying to use viagra tablet the theory with these initiatives.
• Key questions to the group:

1.

What occurs to you on watching the Derek Sivers YouTube clip?
2. What does viagra http://viagraonline-4rxpharmacy.com/ dosage forms this theory raise for you pharmacy online re

is generic cialis as effective monitoring and evaluation?
• Key points from discussion:
canadianpharmacy-rxedtop • Need to understand what motivates the first followers (and the nuts)
• Government could create spaces and places that foster the “nuts” and the “first followers”
• The first followers – makes an action simple, easy and public
• If you want 36 hour cialis to work with the first generic viagra followers http://cialisotc-bestnorxpharma.com/ (as a change aspect) you need super viagra to canadianpharmacyonline-rxed.com create

apps for them to find you
• What happens if your champions (your cialis nut/first follower) doesn’t want to go public? Need to understand why and http://cialisonline-rxstore.com/ evaluate http://pharmacy-genericrx-online.com/ this
• The discussion genericviagra-bestrxonline turned to suggestions for government change programs to support the

first followers and

nuts
viagra on female – viagra like drugs create cialiscoupon-cheapstore.com standards
– networking spaces
– taking viagra too often recognition programs
– peer

cialis free trial coupon reviewing from industry
how long before cialis takes effect – viagra online

deutschland http://canadianpharmacy-storerx.com/ rezeptfrei “on the job” training programs

Participants: Helga Svendsen, Kirsty Fenton, Michael Baranovic, Cheryl Samarasuphe, Danielle Kennedy, Marcia Hewitt, Ian Grant, Bruce Paton, Jonathan Russell, Rebecca Petit

Key Points:

•    There are many different BC models used today.
•    Models are inherently limited (they are linear, they cannot capture the complexity of people – their motives, their behaviour).
•    A common language could both assist and limit us (eg. Assist discussions but also assist assumption – define “evaluation”).
•    Aware of the above limitations of models and language – it could be useful to have a compilation of models and situations where they have worked and not worked.
•    From this a matrix of factors to consider may assist us in finding the ‘best’ model currently available.
•    This matrix would need to include – timescales, resources, connectedness of community, values focussed on, etc.
•    BC Matrix Model factors:
-    Self interest eg, AIDS
-    Timescale (affect now, yes)
-    Geographic
-    Complexity of message (eg, climate change is highly complex)
-    Completeness of science (eg, climate change – scientists don’t agree)
-    Prior Learning
-    Limitations of models – constraints
-    *Complexity of people difficult to capture in a model*

Participants: Andrew Rixon, Keren Winterford, David Williamson, Julie Harris, Candyce Presland, Natalie Moxham, Felicity Thomas, Jonathan Russell, Adrienne Fanning, Vera Lubczenico, Murray Irwin

Key Points:

•    We agreed that a lot of pretending goes on around evaluations. It ranges from quietly allowing people to misinterpret evidence when it suits, through being economical with the truth, to pretending project criteria are useful when they aren’t.
•    Evaluation can create pressure to put on a performance and concealing unintended consequences or failures sometimes feels necessary – but results in considerable waste and lost opportunities to learn
•    Creating more informed management relationships supports greater ??, as does negotiating longer term funding. We found not easy solutions – but it may be good to start to at least acknowledge a serious problem exists.

Topic: Our connection with nature – nature as teacher in behaviour change and evaluation

Participants: Tanya Loos – City of Ballarat (nature@wideband.net.au)
Ellen Regos – Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne

Key Points:

•    Connection with nature – isn’t that our motivating factor for so much of our work in environmental and social sustainability?
•    Do we value our experiences in nature? Are nature walks, meditations and sensory activities valid tools for sustainability/BC conferences?
•    This conference has been a lot about the head – sensory experiences and heart based activities, our whole self – this has been missing.
•    However, deep ecology and other “fringe” education and BC methodologies have shown that creating beautiful, fun, sensory experiences in nature we actually highly successful ways of generosity behaviour change.
•    Our conference question – just go outside, sit in the garden and see what answers come.
•    The mainstream does not value nature as a tool as teacher, it is seen as not valid or rational, not part of the built environment.
•    Certainly, we need to frame nature connection experiences appropriately so as to not alienate people. Big fear: “we are not going to hug trees are we?”
•    Can we bring in nature connection methodologies into the more conservative/traditional spaces of workshops, eg, “field visits”.

Topic: Who actually cares about evaluation? Who is for? Why do they care?

Participants: Jonathon Russel, Greg Bruce, Mark Butz, Julian Denler, Sarah Bartlett, Candyce Presland, Mike Rowell, Rob Catchlove, and more…

Key Points:

•    Different people care about different aspects of evaluation. This can be about accountability and/or learnings. It is important for funders to justify expenditure (in case someone asks about the project).
•    It is important to include mistakes/lessons/failures, to have a balanced report. Lessons need to be carefully phrased so as not to “surprise” or “shock” or “bring fear”.
•    An independent evaluation can bring objectivity, and help to find unexpected consequences.
•    Evaluation reports (especially executive summaries) are useful in review literature to design projects, but often they do not have a summary and clearly outline what worked and what did not.
•    Safe-matching communication (collective social learning) offers a methodology for evaluation.
•    Remember:
1.    Evaluation is audience specific. Eg, you may only need a 5 minute video/snapshot for a councillor
2.    Do not separate evaluation from project management! Use it as a tool to keep learning along the journey
•    What is needed:
•    A forum/website only evaluation reports that showcase failure
•    Easily accessible evaluation reports for collective learning (not hidden on funder’s shelf)
•    Risk – the media can latch on to bad news and stifle creativity (and lead to unbalanced reporting
•    Remaining Question – “has accountability gone too far?”

Leader: Jon Kendall

Participants: Anna Straton, Beth Hyland, Anna Lohse, Jonathan Davy, Fran Westmore, Megan Hughes, Mark Butz

Key Points:

•    We focussed all the challenges of the two worlds of change
•    ME     – satisfying the needs of “funders”
– doing things to create sustainable change
•    Tempting to think that we have to pretend in various ways in the direction of funders, and tempting to think something huge has to happen to move the situation on. BUT we concluded that small things are where the power and opportunity live – what small things can we do to probe/test what seem like fixed boundaries? The small steps often create big ripples!
•    And the apparent paradox of funded change! In order to make a difference we decided to maintain the status quo.

Topic: Our “Mindset” and Worldview as we Evaluate Behaviour Change

Leader: Geoff Brown

Participants: Murray Miller, Ross Egleton, Chris Corrigan, Jan Smith, Jon Keudau, Maria Eliadis, Fran Westmore, Maude Lecourt, Brian Hardy, Diane Nichols, Kathryn McCallum, Sarah Bartlett, Sue Xavis, Andrew Rixon, Debbie Coffey, Stephen Kelly, Felicity Thomas, Lisa Keedle, Jonathan Dacy, Tanya Loos, Martin Hausenblas

Key Points:

•    Willingness to be a learner as opposed to an expert – a key mindset needed across the field
•    Sam Ham’s work – as project leaders we do things in the way “we think” it should work
– A Healthy Assumption we should take is this: “we can learn from our participants”
•    Mindset – we still assume a causal link between providing people with information/experience and the behaviour change we want to see
•    Should we even be focussing on the “set of behaviours” we want to change? Instead should we be focussing on other things like political processes, infrastructural change, social networks/relationships?
•    The notion change “hurts” – how can we support people through this?
–    Re: Biodiversity – help people to notice the things around them (respect the things around them)
–    Maybe our role is to help people simply notice the things around them rather than trying hard to change them?
•    As an evaluator it can be a trap to also be the Architect of the Program because the design is therefore “my baby” – too much attachment and bias
•    Relationships are critical between people in our projects – we often assume that the relationship b/w us (ie, our project) and the participant is the most important one to enable change, maybe we should do more to support the relationships and conversations between participants (”we do what we do under the influence of others)
•    Is evaluation part of the project? Look for opportunities for participants to get involved in evaluation activities – participatory evaluation techniques like Most Significant Change (MSC)
•    Having different “Roles” and different expertise in the design and evaluation of a project is critical
•    A Mindset of “Flexibility” is critical – that is our targets and goals may have to change as a project unfolds – this conversation with the funder can build trust and relationships
•    We need to be able to work and link up what happens @ a Distance (strategic level) @Close-Range: The Actions
•    Giving people (participants and partners) a sense of ownership is critical also
•    Story of Change: Narrative Posters (Andrew Rixon – see www.babelfishgroup.com.au)
1.    “You have all the resources you require” – 1st Challenge and the Mindset needed
2.    “We are doing the best we can”
3.    “Being flexible and hanging loose”
Dilemma raised is the discussion: “WE ARE UP AGAINST IT AND IT’S URGENT!! We don’t have time for all of this!”
-    Refer to the Book: “Time Paradox” Phil Zimbardo – our perception of time can bring about much anxiety
•    Maybe the anxiety around “time pressures” stops us being effective and actually slows us down

Healthiest Time Perspective – refer to TED video (http://ca.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/philip_zimbardo_prescribes_a_healthy_take_on_time.html)
1. Past Positive: appreciation of the past is critical
•    Mindset that our participants have the resources
•    Inquiry Mindset = Listening & Respect the Community – spending time learning the “trigger points”
•    The “Reality” of our participants is important to understand
•    Identify your “behaviour change” journey? – Understand it in ourselves first … walk the talk
•    We need to be living the change we are bringing about to others
•    Being comfortable in saying “I don’t know” is difficult for experts – we need to break this Tyranny!
•    Mindset – Can I even expect to change anybody in my work?

References

1. Dave Snowden’s (Cognitive Edge) work on Complexity helps us to gain a healthy mindset when working with behaviour change projects – refer to this video by Shawn Callhan at Anecdote (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mqNcs8mp74)

2. The ‘failures’ of the Castlemaine 500 Project inspired this topic and their is a chapter on the ‘mindset’ needed at the back of the report – http://www.cvga.net.au/main/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=15&&Itemid=72