takeaway

='Take-away' messages from the event=

In a final session, participants shared what they learned during the Dehra Dun workshop:


 * There was a lot of congruity between the 3 working groups, which makes me confident a robust toll will be developed
 * Keep it simple!
 * Exceeded expectation
 * I’m not going to wait for the final version; I will take forward the current version with NGO partners and share our experiences
 * I was previously confused by FEAST, but now understand this tool better
 * We must increase efficiency of feed usage
 * Initially I was not clear what sort of tool we were looking for: now I am very clear what the tool looks like
 * The tool we have developed can be used, but there is still work to be done
 * I didn’t previously appreciate how much could be achieved
 * The multi-disciplinary group enabled learning and allowed me to see things from different perspectives
 * I didn’t have any hope we would achieve something feasible: the structure of the tool alone will help us
 * Initially I was confused: what sort of tool was it? But a combination of creativity and expert knowledge enabled us to make real progress and I now have a good picture of what TechFit is and I will be using it in my work
 * I was hesitant that I should come – but I can see this is relevant to my work in the EADD project, although need to do some more ground work before it will be clear that the tool is useful
 * It is essential to simplify the tool as much as possible: balancing simplicity while still being rigorous is the challenge
 * Different backgrounds and experiences of participants was very useful
 * I was sceptical about the tool before; now I am enthused although I maintain a healthy scepticism. A worry is, are we re-inventing the wheel in some respects – are we accessing the resources, tools, information that is already out there?
 * Technology selection was ad hoc before – this is a good start to being more systematic
 * Initially we said the audience for the tool was development workers and researchers, but this seems to have shifted towards development workers as primary audience. Perhaps we need two tools: one for development workers and a m ore complex one for researchers
 * This was a workshop waiting to happen. The energy that was apparent during the workshop was a combination of how important participants rate this issue, their creativity and having the right people in the room. This is exactly what CGIAR scientists should be doing: applying their knowledge and making it applicable for development workers

They also identified workshop 'goods' and 'bads':


 * **What was good** || **What could have been better** ||
 * Few Powerpoint presentations || Weather forecast ||
 * Field trip || Internet access ||
 * Friendly hotel || Little exercise eg no swimming pool ||
 * Group work || Minor things in hotel ||
 * Good weather || Partner logistics ||
 * 3 groups providing 3 perspectives on the same issues || Field trip far away and limited time ||
 * Participation ||  ||
 * Venue ||  ||
 * Perfect organisational logistics ||  ||
 * Food ||  ||
 * Nice mix of nice people ||  ||
 * Right size group ||  ||
 * Gender balance OK ||  ||
 * Facilitation ||  ||
 * We have a product and way forward ||  ||