Issuu on Google+

Internal Evaluation of the ESN Sea Battle – Spring 2013 Oscar Boije ESN Sea Battle Coordinator ESN Sweden

1. Introduction Besides the official evaluation form that was sent to all participants, internal evaluation forms were also filled in by ESN Group Leaders (GL's), ESN Local/National Coordinators (LC's/NC’s) and Responsible Party Ambassadors (RPA’s).1 The ESN GL's and LC's evaluation form was launched the 2nd of May and closed the 12th of May. In total the ESN Sea Battle had right under 90 GL's and RPA’s out of which 25 were NC/LC’s and 16 were RPA’s. A total of 23 GL's, 13 LC's/NC’s and 11 RPA’s filled in the evaluation forms. These 47 persons represent hence about 50% of the total amount of ESN'ers that took part of the event. The evaluation form was anonymous, with the GL's though having the option to mention which ESN section they belonged to.2 The results of the internal evaluation form will be presented and studied below. Graphs and the most commonly submitted comments will be presented and discussed.3

2. Internal evaluation forms 2.1 GROUP LEADERS 2.1.1 Previous participation

1

The ESN Group Leaders, ESN Local/National Coordinators and Responsible Party Ambassadors were also requested to fill in the ESN Sea Battle's official participant evaluation form. 2 A similar option was not created for LC's/NC’s and RPA’s since if filled in, the identity of these persons would have been obvious. 3 It should be noted that at the evaluation of the ESN Sea Battle Fall 2012 a 1-5 evaluation scale was used in most of the questions, while at the evaluation for the Spring 2013 a 1-4 evaluation scale was used instead. It may hence not always be possible to fully compare the results of these two evaluations with each other.

ESN Sea Battle www.esnseabattle.org 1


About 70% of all GL's4 informed that they participated in the ESN Sea Battle for the first time. The number of GL’s participating to the event a second time or more is slightly lower than the results of the fall 2012 evaluation, but not significant and hence it doesn’t seem that this is a change that requires any type of action at the moment. 2.1.2 General satisfaction

All GL’s were either Satisfied or More than satisfied with the ESN Sea Battle. This is an improvement compared to the fall 2012 edition where a number of GL’s expressed that they partially were not satisfied with the event. The new work system and proper information might have contributed to the positive results. 2.1.3 Information on tasks

Only one GL was of the opinion that he or she hadn’t gotten enough information about his or her tasks as a GL. This is an improvement compared to the fall 2012, but even if the results are good there is still room for improvement. It is the opinion of the ESN Sea Battle organization that certain section’s GL’s still didn’t get enough information and that work still can be done in order to facilitate the spreading of information to all volunteers.

4

”All GL’s” shall be understood as all persons that filled in the evaluation form. The same type of mentioning of other crew members in this document shall be understood in a similar way as all those persons that filled in the evaluation form.

ESN Sea Battle www.esnseabattle.org 2


2.1.4 GL meeting prior to the event

A slightly bigger percent of GL’s compared to fall 2012 informed that they had had a meeting prior to the event in order to discuss the tasks of the GL’s as well as other practical arrangements. Since these meetings are essential in order to understand the GL’s tasks and other issues related to the event it will be a priority for the ESN Sea Battle organization to for the future strive for local GL meetings to be held at all participating sections. 2.1.5 Arrangement of activities

Even if not all GL’s were certain about their preparedness to host activities on-board, it is still positive to see that at least no GL felt that he or she was not feel at all prepared for their upcoming tasks. The ESN Sea Battle organization is of the opinion that this part of the event can still be improved through an earlier and more efficient communication with the participating GL’s and other crew. 2.1.6 Self-evaluation and evaluation of colleagues' work

ESN Sea Battle www.esnseabattle.org 3


An absolute majority of all GL’s were satisfied with the efforts they put into the event. Only a handful of persons were of the opinion that they could have done more. At the same time most of the GL’s were of the opinion that also all other GL’s on-board had done a Good or Excellent job. Compared to the results of the evaluation of fall 2012 it seems that a slightly higher percentage of GL’s this spring evaluated their colleges to have done a Good or Excellent job. All GL’s also estimate the ESN Sea Battle Coordinator to have done a Good or Excellent job prior and during the event. This last question was not asked to the GL in the fall 2012 evaluation form. The results are in any case very satisfactory. 2.1.7 Cooperation with security guards

A remarkable improvement compared to the fall 2012 evaluation results was the cooperation with the security guards; this spring almost 100% of the GL’s expressing that their cooperation with the guards had been Good or Very good. This is something positive and most probably the result of an improved work method as well as communication in general.

ESN Sea Battle www.esnseabattle.org 4


2.1.8 Interest in returning

Almost 90% of all GL’s expressed that they would be interested in attending the event as GL’s also in the future. This figure is an improvement compared to the fall 2012 evaluation results and in general a very good result. There’s for the moment no need to take a closer look into how to improve even further this figure since the indecisive answers most probably were the results of personal interest and priorities rather than an assessment on how the quality of the event impacted their interest in a future participation. 2.2 LOCAL/NATIONAL COORDINATORS 2.2.1 Previous experience

ESN Sea Battle www.esnseabattle.org 5


A slightly higher amount of LC/NC’s, compared to the fall 2012 results, expressed that they had been LC/NC’s before. Most probably this is explained with the fact that the event took place during the second half of the academic year and that certain persons held the same position for the whole academic year. On the other hand a higher percentage informed that they hadn’t participated in the ESN Sea Battle in the past before becoming LC/NC’s. It must though be mentioned that the number of LC/NC’s that filled in the evaluation form is so low that any expressed opinion in one direction or another changes the results quite significantly. Hence it is hard to say if the difference is indeed in reality as big as it shows in the present evaluation results. It is positive to see that over half of the LC/NC’s felt that they had gotten a proper knowledge transfer from their previous LC/NC’s. These results can though still be improved and the ESN Sea Battle organization can do more in order to improve and facilitate the knowledge transfer between former and new LC/NC’s. This should be a priority for the organizers of the ESN Sea Battle for the upcoming events. 2.2.2 General satisfaction

Almost all NC/LC's were Satisfied or More than satisfied with the event. The result does not differ significantly from the results of the fall 2012 evaluation and are in general very good. There are no clear references to certain LC/NC’s lower satisfaction with the event. It could be assume that it is a combination of several aspects, among other things the preparation for activities on-board 2.2.3 Information

ESN Sea Battle www.esnseabattle.org 6


All LC/NC’s stated that they had received enough information about their tasks and responsibilities. Almost all LC/NC's were also of the opinion that they had received enough information about the actual event. No specific reason was mentioned to the lack of information in the comment section of the evaluation. It is the ESN Sea Battle organization’s belief that local and national knowledge transition tools are still a vital part of the lack of proper information flow between former and new NC/LC’s. 2.2.4 Timing of information

All LC/NC’s were of the opinion that they had gotten all relevant information about the event Usually or Always on time. Here there is still room for improvement in order to reach an even higher satisfaction rate with the timing of the information. Especially the publishing of the program and tasks of the volunteers could and should be sent out at an earlier stage than what has been done so far. 2.2.5 Contacting of the ESN Sea Battle Coordinator

Almost all GL's were of the opinion that it was easy to get in contact with the ESN Sea Battle Coordinator. There doesn’t seem to be necessary to take any further steps regarding this part other than continue with the active communication already established this year. 2.2.6 Arrangement of activities

ESN Sea Battle www.esnseabattle.org 7


Most LC/NC’s felt that they were prepared to organize the events they were responsible for. There was though still a number of persons that were uncertain or not prepared enough to host their activities. As mentioned above, earlier information about the program and the task distribution might help, as well as a greater involvement of the sections and their volunteers in already an earlier stage of the planning of the program. 2.2.7 Self-evaluation

A grand majority of all LC/NC’s were satisfied with their own work before and during the event. All LC/NC’s also stated that the GL’s had done a Good or Excellent job. In general the results are positive even though the appreciation of the GL’s work still has some room for improvement. 2.2.8 Evaluation of the work of the ESN Sea Battle Coordinator

All LC's were of the opinion that the ESN Sea Battle Coordinator had done a Good or Excellent job prior and during the event. The result is very satisfactory.

ESN Sea Battle www.esnseabattle.org 8


2.2.9 Cooperation with security guards

All LC/NC’s stated that they were of the opinion that the cooperation with the security guards had been Good or Very good. During the actual event also members of the security staff expressed similar views. In general the work of both security personnel and GL’s at the event was efficient and easier than previous events. This was a clear improvement compared to the results of the evaluation of the Fall 2012 event, even if also those ones were mostly positive. 2.2.10 Interest in returning

Almost all LC/NC's stated that they would definitely consider being the LC/NC's of their section/country also at future editions of the ESN Sea Battle. The ESN Sea Battle organization is very pleased with these results.

ESN Sea Battle www.esnseabattle.org 9


2.3 RESPONSIBLE PARTY AMBASSADORS5 2.3.1 Previous experience

Only two out of 11 RPA’s had attended the ESN Sea Battle before. This number is very low, even though it is similar to that one of the number of GL’s that had previously attended the event. For future events the necessity to ensure that RPA’s are chosen among those volunteers that have previous experience from the ESN Sea Battle will still be discussed. A previous participation does not automatically affect the outcome of the implementation of the project, but could have a positive impact. 2.3.2 General satisfaction

Almost all RPA’s were Satisfied or More than satisfied with the event, only one person expressed his or her partial dissatisfaction with the event. The figure does not differ greatly from that of other volunteers on-board, even though the results are a bit more positive than those ones of the GL’s. Efforts can still be made to increase even further the general satisfaction with the event.

5

Since spring 2013 was the first ESN Sea Battle event where the Responsible Party project has been implemented it is not possible to compare the results of this evaluation with any previous evaluations.

ESN Sea Battle www.esnseabattle.org 10


2.3.3 Information

About 75% of all RPA’s stated that they had received enough information about their tasks as RPA’s. There is a clear need to improve this part for future events. The information material will have to be gone through and maybe also the timing of the information, as well as the method of distributing the information. It was though positive to see that almost all RPA’s were of the opinion that the RP training held on-board the ferry was considered Useful or Very useful. It seems like the training on-board the ferry well complemented the information sent prior to the actual event. There is though still some room for improvement also regarding the RP training held at the ESN Sea Battle. 2.3.4 Timing of information

All RPA’s were of the opinion that they had received the necessary information about their tasks and the event in general Usually or Always on time. It is though the view of the ESN Sea Battle organization that this area of work still can be improved, especially related to the information regarding the planned activities to be hosted during the event.

ESN Sea Battle www.esnseabattle.org 11


2.3.5 Arrangement of activities

Almost all RPA’s stated to have felt Rather or Completely prepared to host the activities they were assigned during the event. It seems like improvement can also be made regarding this point. The sending out of information at an earlier stage might contribute to the improved preparedness as well as the improvement of the RP training held on-board. 2.3.6 Self-evaluation

ESN Sea Battle www.esnseabattle.org 12


Most RPA’s estimated themselves to have done a Good or Excellent job during the event. A number of RPA’s though also expressed that they had not done a satisfyingly enough job. This figure is rather different compared to that one of the GL’s or LC/NC’s who in a large majority estimate their own work more positively. The evaluation of their colleges’ work was though more positive with a big majority considering their colleges to have done a Good or Excellent job. The evaluation of the GL’s work was even more positive with almost all RPA’s stating that the GL’s had done a Good or Excellent work. The results show that more emphasis needs to be put into the tasks of the RPA’s and the fulfillment of the expectations these persons have about their tasks. Clearer guidelines and more concrete tasks during the event might contribute to a better satisfaction with the RPA’s own work in the future. 2.3.7 Evaluation of the work of the ESN Sea Battle Coordinator

Almost all RPA's rated the ESN Sea Battle Coordinator to have done an Excellent job prior to and during the ESN Sea Battle. This figure is very satisfactory. 2.3.8 Interest in returning

A majority of all RPA’s expressed that they would be interested in acting as RPA’s also in future ESN Sea Battle events. About 25% of the RPA’s expressed though that they in the future would prefer to participate as GL’s, while a couple of respondents were not sure about their future participation. The result is not as good as the figures of the GL’s or the LC/NC’s. It may be that improving the information flow and having clearer tasks and ensuring better preparedness for the hosting of events could assist to reach a greater interest in attending again as RPA’s also at future events. ESN Sea Battle www.esnseabattle.org 13


3. Areas of improvements 3.1 Internal communication There is still room for improvement regarding the internal communication of the event between the central organization and the local sections and NC’s. On the one hand there should be a focus on sending out information and material earlier, and the other hand there seems to be some relevant information still missing for those sections which did not have proper transitions from previous LC’s. 3.2 Clearer tasks Both GL’s as well as RPA’s seem to miss some more specific information regarding their tasks on-board the ESN Sea Battle. It seems that especially more information about the activities to be hosted needs to be provided, but also practical information about the activities and events on-board. It will be a goal for the ESN Sea Battle organization to inform GL’s better in the future regarding all parts of the event. 3.3 Responsible Party The Responsible Party was implemented for the first time at the spring edition of the ESN Sea Battle. Even though the results were very positive viewed from the participants’ point of view, it seems that more can still be done in order to also improve the project internally. A better flow of communication with the RPA’s as well as clearer tasks prior and during the event could improve this. It may be a good idea to involve the RPA’s in an earlier stage so that they themselves can plan and execute their activities on-board. Especially the improvement of the information related to the tasks of the RPA’s and events to be hosted will be emphasized at future events.

4. Final words The ESN Sea Battle was once again a very successful event. All volunteers: LC/NC’s, GL’s, RPA’s and more put an enormous effort into the event and it really showed in the final results. The security guards were very satisfied and it seems like the attempt with scheduled work for the GL’s was a great success. All volunteers can’t be thanked enough for all the commitment and love towards the event – like always it has been fun and a great pleasure to work on it together. We’re already looking forward to the next one! For any additional comments or questions regarding this evaluation, you're all more than welcome to contact us at seabattle@esnsweden.org. Thank you once again for participating in this evaluation, to the actual event and for assisting us in the organization of the ESN Sea Battle!

Oscar Boije ESN Sea Battle Coordinator seabattle@esnsweden.org

ESN Sea Battle www.esnseabattle.org 14


ESN Sea Battle Spring 2013 - GL's, LC/NC's and RPA's Evaluation