Workshop Evaluation Report · April 2026
Baseline-to-Endline Analysis — Mongolian-German Institute of Technology (GMIT)
Executive Summary
This report presents an analysis of participant perceptions before and after the two-day leadership and inter-unit communication workshop at GMIT. Baseline data (n=18) was collected prior to the training; endline data (n=11) was collected immediately after completion. The workshop received overwhelmingly positive evaluations, with strong gains in participants' sense of role clarity, connection, and confidence in addressing cross-unit issues.
The program was widely seen as relevant, well-designed, and professionally facilitated. The mixed academic/administrative participation was praised for enriching dialogue. Post-training scores show meaningful gains in role understanding, confidence, and peer connection. RACI and SBI frameworks were consistently named as the most practically valuable tools learned.
Part 1 — Before the Workshop
Before the workshop, participants rated 20 statements about communication, clarity, and leadership at GMIT on a 1–5 scale. The results reveal a moderate baseline — most scores clustered between 3.0 and 3.8 — with several clear pain points.
In open responses, participants identified the following as major barriers to effective cross-unit communication:
Part 2 — Workshop Evaluation
100% of respondents rated the program "Good" or above. No "Fair" or "Poor" ratings were given.
Participants consistently named two frameworks as the standout learning moments:
Part 3 — Post-Training Outcomes
The endline survey included eight new outcome statements assessing whether the workshop achieved its intended learning objectives. All scored above 3.8, indicating clear positive impact.
The highest-scoring outcome was participants' clarity about their own role in improving communication (4.27), showing the workshop succeeded in building individual ownership. The lowest-scoring outcome — though still positive — was confidence that leadership will solve the identified issues (3.82), reflecting a realistic awareness that structural change depends on continued commitment from above.
Participants committed to specific near-term actions, most frequently mentioning:
When asked what support they need to maintain workshop outcomes, participants identified:
Part 4 — Recommendations
Based on the endline feedback — both quantitative scores and open-ended suggestions — the following recommendations are offered to strengthen future iterations of the program.
The training succeeded in building awareness and tools, but participants' lowest post-training score — confidence that leadership will solve problems (3.82) — signals that the next critical step is visible, sustained action by senior leadership. The Communication Charter and the 5 Principles adopted during the workshop must be publicly championed and monitored. Without this, training gains risk fading within 30–60 days.
Appendix
| Statement (Baseline) | Baseline Score | Category |
|---|---|---|
| I can get info from other units | 3.00 | Information Flow |
| Management info reaches peers timely | 3.12 | Information Flow |
| My unit communicates clearly with others | 3.50 | Information Flow |
| Effective communication channels exist | 3.22 | Information Flow |
| Cross-unit problems solved effectively | 3.24 | Information Flow |
| I know who to contact in other units | 3.83 | Information Flow |
| Academic–admin relations are respectful | 3.59 | Information Flow |
| Staff informed before key decisions | 3.65 | Information Flow |
| Clear understanding of org strategy | 3.61 | Clarity |
| Strategy translated to unit goals | 3.28 | Clarity |
| Clear decision-making accountability | 3.28 | Clarity |
| Clear escalation process for conflicts | 2.75 | Clarity |
| Meetings lead to clear decisions | 3.53 | Clarity |
| My performance expectations are clear | 3.28 | Clarity |
| Other units keep commitments | 3.33 | Trust & Leadership |
| I can openly voice disagreement | 3.72 | Trust & Leadership |
| Academic & admin leadership collaborate | 3.35 | Trust & Leadership |
| Cross-unit conflicts resolved creatively | 3.17 | Trust & Leadership |
| Leadership models communication norms | 2.83 | Trust & Leadership |
| My input is heard by leadership | 3.71 | Trust & Leadership |
| Post-Training Outcome | Score |
|---|---|
| I understand my role in improving communication | 4.27 |
| Clearer on who to include in decisions | 4.09 |
| Communication Charter is a key step forward | 4.00 |
| Coordination group will bring positive change | 4.00 |
| Feel more connected to other units | 4.00 |
| Confident commitments will be fulfilled | 4.00 |
| Clearer understanding of communication breakdowns | 3.91 |
| Confident leadership can solve identified issues | 3.82 |
| Evaluation Dimension | Score |
|---|---|
| Two days were worthwhile | 4.64 |
| Facilitator managed mixed group effectively | 4.55 |
| Workshop was well organized | 4.55 |
| Facilitation was professional & created safe space | 4.45 |
| Program addressed real challenges at GMIT | 4.45 |
| Content designed for university context | 4.36 |
| Program pace was appropriate | 4.36 |
| Mixed group enriched learning | 4.27 |
| Materials and workbook clear & useful | 4.27 |
| Learned practical tools for daily use | 4.18 |
| Activities helped see new perspectives | 4.18 |
| More confident addressing cross-unit issues | 4.18 |
| Helped understand other units' perspective | 4.00 |