3rd Annual Hong Kong Innovative Users Group Meeting
Results of Programme Evaluation

Programme organization
Grade Responses Percent Graph
20 25%
38 48%
20 25%
1 1%
0 0%
Total Number of Responses: 79

Programme publicity
Grade Responses Percent Graph
10 13%
32 41%
32 41%
4 5%
1 1%
Total Number of Responses: 79

Days for the programme
Grade Responses Percent Graph
15 19%
19 24%
41 53%
3 4%
0 0%
Total Number of Responses: 78

Time for presentations by individual libraries
Grade Responses Percent Graph
7 9%
20 26%
44 56%
6 8%
1 1%
Total Number of Responses: 78

Time for presentations by III
Grade Responses Percent Graph
15 19%
18 23%
39 49%
7 9%
0 0%
Total Number of Responses: 79

Time for group discussions
Grade Responses Percent Graph
0 0%
15 20%
41 55%
16 22%
2 3%
Total Number of Responses: 74

Presentations by individual libraries
Grade Responses Percent Graph
9 12%
38 49%
26 33%
5 6%
0 0%
Total Number of Responses: 78

Presentations by III
Grade Responses Percent Graph
6 8%
32 41%
32 41%
7 9%
2 3%
Total Number of Responses: 79

Group discussions
Grade Responses Percent Graph
3 4%
28 39%
35 49%
5 7%
0 0%
Total Number of Responses: 71

Location
Grade Responses Percent Graph
30 38%
35 44%
14 18%
0 0%
0 0%
Total Number of Responses: 79

Audio-Visual facilities
Grade Responses Percent Graph
30 38%
41 52%
7 9%
1 1%
0 0%
Total Number of Responses: 79

Air conditioning
Grade Responses Percent Graph
31 40%
36 47%
10 13%
0 0%
0 0%
Total Number of Responses: 77

Conference lunch
Grade Responses Percent Graph
8 12%
24 36%
26 39%
7 11%
1 2%
Total Number of Responses: 66

Refreshments
Grade Responses Percent Graph
10 13%
33 43%
27 35%
4 5%
3 4%
Total Number of Responses: 77

Comments on group discussions      

I work for both Circulation and Cataloguing, but I could attend only one group discussion as they were held at the same time slot.
We shared a lot of ideas and experience that relate very much to our daily work with the specific INNOPAC module. It helps to wrap up everything, it would be good if there was a session, after the group discussion, summarizing our requests and concerns on each module and inviting feedback from INNOPAC staff as well.
If the answers for questions can be distributed prior to the session would be better.
Participants should have seen the questions beforehand, so that they know roughly what would be involved in the discussion. If you put the discussion on the 2nd day of the Meeting and alert them to read the questions for the discussion on the next day, the discussion could be more fruitful. Some of us have not seen the Millennium edition of the Cataloguing Module, so have no idea of the problems involved.
Better to have III's staff around to answer questions and to note our concerns.
Find it very helpful and informative.

í@

General comments and suggestions for improvement

Thank you very much for your kind arrangement of this meeting.  It's a nice experience for me.  I have learned much from this meeting. ¬L¬¸¬K(Chin-chin Lin), National Taiwan University Library.
Please invite INNOVATIVE users from the Philippines and Korea to join us.
Upgrade jobs by III should be scheduled and made known to all. Delays or postponements should be avoided and should notify users about the new schedule.
Common problems encountered by most of the users should be dealt in priority and it is a waste of time and irresponsible to ask individual user to make an enhancement request.
There is a common feeling that III is not proactive enough in improving its Millennium product to suit usersíŽ needs and leaving users feeling frustrated.
Users have reservation in committing to new products.
As there are not many new products from III and new topics from libraries, the meeting can be carried out once every two years.
Changes to the programme schedule were not that well publicized in advance.
Should cover topics on Content Management and Library Workflow.
I think it's not justified to hold the meeting every year because in HK there are only a limited (or even fixed) number of INNOPAC sites. There will not be so many new exciting topics/ideas/developments added to the meeting every 12-month. Shall we make it a bi-annual meeting?
I want to know more how about the innovative programme and what the problem will be occurred. Whatever presented by individual libraries did not help me to solve any problem at all.
I would like to see how other libraries have implemented and utilized new features in INNOPAC e.g. E-checkin, electronic resources management, license management. I am interested to know about their experience.
III's presentations were very interesting, but some are too long. It would be good if they could let the participants actually try out some of the products during the Meeting. e.g. Have the Millennium module set up on a computer and let others play around with it. Have real live demos instead of just a power point presentation.
Shorten III's presentation of their Customer Service Department or just scrape this part if there have been no significant updates.
The presentations need improvement, such as: 1. Some presentations consist of words alone (no figures, pictures); 2. Some presentations are delivered in words with on-screen text (not a speech); 3. Some presentations are made with narration echoing on-screen text (narration should be used to augment graphics). (The above points are from a textbook on e-learning, please see "E-Learning and the science of instruction: proven guidelines for consumer and designers of 4 multimedia learning / by Ruth Colvin Clark and Richard E. Mayer. 2002  ISBN 0 7879 6051 9 ).
The session on III presentations such as Announcements, General Information, Company updates and Customer Services can be omitted. Such information may not be interested by most attendants.
Would like to see more presentations from each library.

Back to HKIUG Homepage