- Email: [email protected]
My response to evaluation '86
AEANEWS My Response to Evaluation '86 Carrie A. Miles Lockheed Missiles and Space Company P.O. Box 504 Sunnyvale, California 94086
For the past three years, I have been searching for the "right" professional association. As a Ph.D. working in industry, I wanted to find other people who are dealing with the real-world problems faced in business but who also appreciate theory and methodological issues in research. I have up to now been searching in vain. I was pleased to find at Evaluation '86 a good blend of practical concern mixed with methodological rigor and thought. The business and industry workshops I attended at the conference were informative and useful. I wish there had been more of them. In one workshop, I had the opportunity to present a paper on the impact of a management training program. Not knowing my audience, I took some time to explain what management training is, but I soon discovered the room was full of trainers. So there seems to be a number of people whose areas of concern are similar to mine. I look forward to learning more from them. If anyone reading this can do something to get more business-related workshops on the program, you have my vote. However, I was also happy to interact with professionals whose lines of work differ from my current one. As I came to Evaluation '86, I admit to being a bit starved for certain kinds of associations. In my present 74
7S
position evaluating human resource programs, design issues can be very demanding, but I rarely have opportunity to use statistical techniques any more flashy than t-tests, Frequency counts are more the order of the day. With the ardor of a pilgrim attending a miracle site, I attended the preconference session on Bayesian methods. I confess to a certain thrill when someone mentioned path models. I appreciated the chance to hear about these things again . In addition to liking the content of the conference, I had a good time with my fellow conference attendees. Everyone was friendly and approachable. I came knowing no one and left with new friends. I was impressed with the caliber of the people I met. The convention itself was well run, and the facilities comfortable. I even liked Kansas City. So, in summary-I hope to meet you in Boston next year.
A View of the Value of Evaluation '86 from Business and Industry Nicholas M. Sanders Cigna Insurance Oliver W. Cummings Arthur Andersen & Co.
Evaluation '86 was a valuable conference for its business and industry attendees. As we interacted with others from business and industry, and with academicians sharing an interest in evaluation in business, it was generally felt that this was the best conference of the past three or four years. The organization and scheduling for the conference were excellent. It was helpful to find business-/ industry-focused papers together in paper sessions, rather than spread among other types of presentations. The 90-minute session length with time between sessions was a good format. The content of some sessions was also particularly valuable. The private-sector-oriented sessions ranged from needs assessment through follow-up, from health care to manufacturing. The sessions from other
For the past three years, I have been searching for the "right" professional association. As a Ph.D. working in industry, I wanted to find other people who are dealing with the real-world problems faced in business but who also appreciate theory and methodological issues in research. I have up to now been searching in vain. I was pleased to find at Evaluation '86 a good blend of practical concern mixed with methodological rigor and thought. The business and industry workshops I attended at the conference were informative and useful. I wish there had been more of them. In one workshop, I had the opportunity to present a paper on the impact of a management training program. Not knowing my audience, I took some time to explain what management training is, but I soon discovered the room was full of trainers. So there seems to be a number of people whose areas of concern are similar to mine. I look forward to learning more from them. If anyone reading this can do something to get more business-related workshops on the program, you have my vote. However, I was also happy to interact with professionals whose lines of work differ from my current one. As I came to Evaluation '86, I admit to being a bit starved for certain kinds of associations. In my present 74
7S
position evaluating human resource programs, design issues can be very demanding, but I rarely have opportunity to use statistical techniques any more flashy than t-tests, Frequency counts are more the order of the day. With the ardor of a pilgrim attending a miracle site, I attended the preconference session on Bayesian methods. I confess to a certain thrill when someone mentioned path models. I appreciated the chance to hear about these things again . In addition to liking the content of the conference, I had a good time with my fellow conference attendees. Everyone was friendly and approachable. I came knowing no one and left with new friends. I was impressed with the caliber of the people I met. The convention itself was well run, and the facilities comfortable. I even liked Kansas City. So, in summary-I hope to meet you in Boston next year.
A View of the Value of Evaluation '86 from Business and Industry Nicholas M. Sanders Cigna Insurance Oliver W. Cummings Arthur Andersen & Co.
Evaluation '86 was a valuable conference for its business and industry attendees. As we interacted with others from business and industry, and with academicians sharing an interest in evaluation in business, it was generally felt that this was the best conference of the past three or four years. The organization and scheduling for the conference were excellent. It was helpful to find business-/ industry-focused papers together in paper sessions, rather than spread among other types of presentations. The 90-minute session length with time between sessions was a good format. The content of some sessions was also particularly valuable. The private-sector-oriented sessions ranged from needs assessment through follow-up, from health care to manufacturing. The sessions from other