National Academies Press: OpenBook

Evaluation of the Second National Conference on Manufacturing Technology (1995)

Chapter: APPENDIX B: CONFERENCE EVALUATION GUIDELINES

« Previous: APPENDIX A: CONFERENCE AGENDA
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B: CONFERENCE EVALUATION GUIDELINES." National Research Council. 1995. Evaluation of the Second National Conference on Manufacturing Technology. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9122.
×

Appendix B

Conference Evaluation Guidelines

CONFERENCE-LEVEL EVALUATION

Objective 1. Provide an overview to industry and academia of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Committee on Civilian Industrial Technology (CCIT), with emphasis on the subcommittees on Manufacturing Infrastructure and Advanced Materials Processing.

  1. Did the CCIT presentations have a clear and coherent message on what the committee and the NSTC are and what they are doing? Was the message relevant to both industry and academia?

  2. Did the responses and questions from the audience indicate that the message was communicated effectively, or was there confusion about NSTC–CCIT roles and objectives?

Objective 2. Provide a forum for government to understand the key issues and needs in the U.S. manufacturing sector.

  1. Did the presentations by industry sector representatives identify key issues and needs and explain why they were important to the manufacturing sector?

  2. Were these issues and needs presented in terms of potential government actions or responsibilities?

  3. Did particular issues and needs stand out as capturing more attention, assent, or controversy among participants?

Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B: CONFERENCE EVALUATION GUIDELINES." National Research Council. 1995. Evaluation of the Second National Conference on Manufacturing Technology. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9122.
×

Objective 3. Provide a forum for industry and academia to evaluate the generic manufacturing framework proposed by the CCIT Subcommittee on Manufacturing Infrastructure and to evaluate the needs and priorities that arise in the different thrust areas.

  1. Was the conference as a whole well organized to provide a forum for evaluating the framework and the needs and priorities that evolved from the individual workshops?

  2. What did participants think of the manufacturing framework?

  3. Did the plenary sessions following the workshops succeed in evaluating needs and priorities that evolved from the workshop reports. Which needs and priorities received this kind of evaluation?

Objective 4. Assist in defining the major elements of a common manufacturing technology agenda that integrates the efforts of government, industry, academia, and workforce organizations.

  1. Did the conference succeed in identifying elements of a common manufacturing agenda? What elements were identified?

  2. Were these relevant to government, industry, academia, and workforce organizations?

WORKSHOP-LEVEL EVALUATION

Objective 1. Provide an overview to industry and academia of the NSTC–CCIT with emphasis on the subcommittees on Manufacturing Infrastructure and Advanced Materials Processing.

  1. During the workshop, were there any indications of

    1. how well the CCIT message had been understood or

    2. what participants thought of the NSTC–CCIT roles, objectives, and approach to meeting objectives?

Objective 2. Provide a forum for government to understand the key issues and needs in the U.S. manufacturing sector.

Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B: CONFERENCE EVALUATION GUIDELINES." National Research Council. 1995. Evaluation of the Second National Conference on Manufacturing Technology. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9122.
×
  1. Was the structure and conduct of the workshop conducive to providing a forum for issues and needs raised in panel I and II sessions or during the workshop itself?

  2. What key issues and needs emerged from the workshop or received particular attention?

  3. How did participants see these issues and needs as relevant to federal government action?

Objective 3. Provide a forum for industry and academia to evaluate the generic manufacturing framework proposed by the CCIT Subcommittee on Manufacturing Infrastructure and to evaluate the needs and priorities that arise in the different thrust areas.

  1. How well was the workshop organized and conducted to serve as a forum for these evaluations?

  2. Were participants in the workshop generally satisfied with the framework 's characterization of the area? Were there suggestions for drawing the boundary differently? Does the thrust area seem relevant to participants from industry and academia?

  3. Were participants able to prioritize, even roughly, the needs in this area?

Objective 4. Assist in defining the major elements of a common manufacturing technology agenda that integrates the efforts of government, industry, academia, and workforce organizations.

  1. Was the workshop organized to identify issues that could lead to the development of a common manufacturing agenda? What issues were identified?

  2. Did these seem relevant to government, industry, academic, and workforce organizations?

Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B: CONFERENCE EVALUATION GUIDELINES." National Research Council. 1995. Evaluation of the Second National Conference on Manufacturing Technology. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9122.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B: CONFERENCE EVALUATION GUIDELINES." National Research Council. 1995. Evaluation of the Second National Conference on Manufacturing Technology. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9122.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B: CONFERENCE EVALUATION GUIDELINES." National Research Council. 1995. Evaluation of the Second National Conference on Manufacturing Technology. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9122.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B: CONFERENCE EVALUATION GUIDELINES." National Research Council. 1995. Evaluation of the Second National Conference on Manufacturing Technology. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9122.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B: CONFERENCE EVALUATION GUIDELINES." National Research Council. 1995. Evaluation of the Second National Conference on Manufacturing Technology. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9122.
×
Page 60
Next: APPENDIX C: MANUFACTURING INFRASTRUCTURE CATEGORIES »
Evaluation of the Second National Conference on Manufacturing Technology Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!