African Development Forum '99: the challenge to Africa of Globalisation and the Information Age Conference Evaluation An evaluation of the ADF '99 was conducted on the basis of a questionnaire (in English and in French) distributed to participants on the last day of the Forum. Some 116 valid questionnaires were returned, comprising 12 percent of the participants who had attended the Forum either at one point or throughout. However, the number of questionnaires returned as a percentage of those who attended throughout was probably much higher, as the first two sessions (Sunday evening and Monday morning) were marked by a high level of official representation from embassies and heads of agencies and organisations. The number who attended throughout is estimated at 650; the questionnaires returned as a percentage of these is 18%. The general areas in which the evaluation attempted to elicit responses were identification of participants in terms of Forum target audiences, relevance of conference programme, outcomes and perceived impacts, achievement of objectives, quality of conference documentation, content, conference organisation and structure, conference facilities, conference learning and lessons learned for future gatherings. Question one: name Forty-six percent of respondents gave their names (it was an optional field). This is a standard rate of response, with most people preferring to submit evaluation questionnaires anonymously. Question two: gender The gender of respondents was 80% male and 20% female. This percentage lends substantiation to the concerns of the gender focus group that women were underrepresented both as participants and as presenters and chairs at the Forum. It also reflects the concern that women's access to and use of ICTs is limited in the Africa region. Despite the fact that the three main officers organising the Conference were themselves women and well aware of the gender challenges in using ICTs in developing countries, it proved difficult to secure a creditable proportion of female participants. Question three: Coming to conference from?
Eighty-one percent of questionnaire respondents came to the Forum from Africa, seven percent from North America, twelve percent from Europe, one percent from Asia and one percent from elsewhere. The surprising figure was that only one percent came from the African diaspora. This latter is an underrepresentation of this group in the questionnaire respondents or else a lack of self identification of this group (who perhaps identified themselves as coming to the conference from North America or Europe), as a survey of the list of participants indicates that at least three percent of participants were from the diaspora. The predominance of African participants validates the aim of the Forum as an African venue to develop an African-led development agenda. Question four: institutional origins Composition of participants
Participants were asked what type of institution they represented or work with. The results indicate that those who attended were well distributed among the public sector, NGOs, research, policy and training institutions, the private sector and development agencies. Some 36 percent were from the African public sector, fifteen from NGOs, thirteen percent from universities and research institutions, fifteen percent from the private sector, and fifteen percent from development agencies. Six percent listed their institution as "other". Among those who classified themselves as "other" included a labour union representative, a participant from the media, two participants from subregional and regional organisations, a high school student (from the youth focus group) and an independent expert. Analysis of closed-ended questionnaire responses On the questionnaire, participants were asked to rate various aspects of the conference on a scale of 1 to 5 (with one being the lowest rating and 5 the highest). Other closed-ended questions were on a three range scale. In the following analysis, open ended questions are identified as such. Question five: relevance of the Forum Participants were asked to what extent they found the conference relevant to their organisations or institution’s needs. The Forum received very high marks on relevance of the Conference theme. Seventy-nine percent found it very relevant; nearly twenty percent found it "somewhat relevant", while less than one percent deemed it "not relevant." Thus, ninety-nine percent of respondents found the conference either somewhat or very relevant to their work. Question six: issues focus Participants were asked about the extent to which the conference focused on issues they hoped would be addressed. On a five point scale, eighty-four percent of respondents rated the issues focus as either high (25.9 percent) or high medium (57.8) percent. Only 4.3 percent gave a low or low medium reading. Twelve percent of respondents rated the issues focus as a 3, or medium. The overwhelming percentage of those responding with the two highest ratings indicates that the issues focus of the conference was very good. Question seven: time allocation Participants were asked whether they felt the conference had allocated adequate time for constructive discussions. Responses more divided on this question. While 48.3 percent gave the highest two ratings (4 and 5), nearly a third (thirty-one percent) rated the time allocation for constructive discussions as medium, while 20.7 percent gave the two lowest ratings. The division of responses on this issue indicates that greater efforts should have been made to allocate more time to floor discussions. Question eight: achievement of objectives The questionnaire asked whether the conference had achieved the objectives that the participants understood when they decided to attend. Three-fifths (60.4%) of respondents gave the highest or second highest rating on this response. An additional 28% responded in the medium range. Only nine percent responded in the two lower quintiles. Responses indicate that participants felt that the Conference achieved its objectives as they understood them. Question nine: help in identifying policy options Participants were asked to what extent the conference helped them identify suitable policy options for their countries. Nearly ninety percent (89.3%) of respondents answered in the top three categories, with sixty-six percent rating the conference 4 out of 5 on this question. Only nine percent replied in the two lower quintiles. However, some eleven percent did not reply to the question, perhaps because they felt they were not involved in identifying policy options for their country. The conference appears to have been successful in assisting participants in identifying policy options. Question ten: promotion of exchange of experiences The questionnaire asked to what extent the conference promoted exchange of lessons and experiences. The Conference received very favourable ratings on this question. More than three-quarters of respondents (77.5%) responded with the two highest ratings. An additional fourteen percent gave the conference a medium rating in this regard. Eight percent responded with the two lowest ratings. Question eleven: lead to follow up activities (Closed and open-ended question) Participants were asked whether the conference led them to consider any follow-up activities, whether from sessions or contacts made at the Forum. Ninety-seven percent of those who responded said that they would follow up their participation in the conference, while only three percent said they had not considered any follow up. This appears to be an extraordinarily high positive response rate and an important indicator of success of the conference. Some of those who responded positively to this question did not detail the areas that they intended to follow up; however, among this group, respondents showed their enthusiasm for follow up in their non-specific comments, noting that they found "lots" to follow up on and that they would "definitely do so." Many others did cite specific areas in which they intended to become involved or further their present involvement, including:
Others cited modalities - ways in which they intended to get involved:
One participant requested conference organisers to take the lead in follow up to the conference and to inform the participants of opportunities in which they could get involved. Question twelve: ideas to enhance Africa's economic development Participants were asked to what extent the conference provided ideas on enhancing African's development. Eighty-nine percent of respondents answered in the three highest ranges, with forty-one percent giving the high medium rating (4). Eight percent responded with the two lowest ratings, indicating that they did not get ideas on enhancing African economic development from this Conference. It appears from these results that the Conference succeeded in providing ideas to enhance Africa's economic development. Question thirteen: quality of conference facilities Those who filled in the questionnaire were asked how they rated the conference facilities. Eighty-seven percent of respondents answered in the top two quintiles, with fifty-two percent giving the highest possible rating. This validates ECA's view that its Conference Centre is a major advantage to the organisation. Questions fourteen (a) and (b): use of cybercafe Participants were asked whether they had used the facilities of the cybercafe. Forty-two percent responded that they did, while fifty-seven percent did not. Of those that used it, ninety-four percent rated it a 4 or 5. It must be borne in mind that the programme was tightly packed, with little time available for getting to the cybercafe, which would account for less than half of the participants using it. However, the response and approval of service rates were sufficiently high to warrant the provision of such a facility for future ADFs. Question fifteen: visit to exhibition Participants were asked whether they visited the exhibition. Ninety-six percent said that they had done so. This is an exceedingly high visit rate, and it validates conference organisers decision to locate the coffee breaks and receptions in the exhibit area to encourage exhibit viewing. Such a high response rate can also be used by future conference organizers to attract exhibitors and to justify exhibition fees. Question sixteen: interest in exhibition The questionnaire asked respondents how interesting and useful they found the exhibition. The ratings on this question were also quite high. Nearly three-quarters (73.3%) of those who visited the exhibition rated it in the two highest categories. A further twenty percent gave it a medium (three) rating. Only four percent found it to be not useful (the two lowest ratings). Question seventeen: receipt of conference documents Respondents were asked whether they received the conference documents. Eighty-five percent responded that they had received the conference documents. Obviously, conference organisers would have wished for a one hundred percent positive return on this item. The difficulty arose in the numbers who attended the conference versus those who had registered to attend. One week before the conference, some three hundred persons had registered to attend. As 650 copies of the documents had been printed, that should have been sufficient. However, as the final numbers of those attending reached 950, it was not. Throughout the week of the conference, ECA printing staff worked overtime to try to reprint as many of the documents as possible and get them to participants. Question eighteen: quality of documents Participants were asked to evaluate the quality of the conference documentation. This question received very positive responses. Eighty-five percent of respondents gave the two highest ratings (4 and 5) to this question. An additional ten percent gave a medium rating, while only five percent rated the documentation as being of low or low medium quality. Eleven percent did not respond, probably corresponding to those who had not received the documents. Question nineteen: conference logistics The questionnaire asked how effective participants found the conference logistics. Forty percent awarded the logistics a high medium rating, while twenty-five percent gave the highest possible rating and an additional twenty-three percent gave a medium rating. Thus, eighty-eight percent gave positive (medium to highest) ratings on this element. This is gratifying to conference organisers who feared that the last minute unexpected surge in attendance would play havoc with conference logistics. It appears that the bottlenecks that occurred were either relatively transparent to conference participants or that they overlooked them in comparison with other aspects on the conference. Question twenty: best liked aspects of the conference (Open-ended question) Participants were asked which aspect(s) of the conference they liked most. Being an open-ended question, there was a wide diversity of response to this question. Many people answered with comments about the participants. The most frequent response was that the quality of the participants gave them excellent opportunities for networking (cited sixteen times) and sharing of experiences (six times). Two cited the importance of their contacts with partners. Other specific comments on participants included the large attendance and their high degree of spirit and engagement both in sessions and in corridor meetings. Respondents commented positively on the presence of the African diaspora, on the quality of the resource persons, on the substantial presence of both the public and the private sector, on the presence of NGOs and, as a result of the previous, on the variety of points of view presented. Others identified the subject matter as the aspect of the conference that they liked best. Four commended the overall choice of conference theme (globalisation and the information age in Africa), while five liked best the choice of sub-themes (infrastructure, information economy, democratisation of access and ICTs for governance). Three grouped these together and said that the choice of theme, sub-themes and breakout topics was the best part of the conference. Several persons commented that presentation one of the sub-themes was the best aspect for them (and each sub-theme got at least two such comments each). Other topics featured at the conference which received "best aspect of conference rating" were: ICTs and health, ICTs and education, content development, African diaspora, partnership, distance education, e-commerce and telecentres. Five commended the substantive aspects of the conference overall- referring to the wealth of documentation, well-prepared documentation (four citations) and the in-depth coverage of the issues presented. Some six comments related to the Conference organisation overall, referring to the way that they were received. One participant said that "the reception, efficiency and availability of the conference staff and other ECA staff" were the best aspects for him. Another said, "the generosity thoroughout: reception, coffee breaks, meals, documentation, complete availability [of staff to help participants]. These were things that you don't find elsewhere, even in Europe or the U.S.A." Others made their "best" awards to programme aspects of the Conference, with five regarding the keynote addresses as the best aspect, two citing the address of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi; one, President Konare and one, ECA Executive Secretary K.Y. Amoako. Four others commended the plenary sessions as the best aspect. One respondent commented on the open discussion that took place at plenaries, particularly the closing. Further on programme aspects, some six respondents commended the overall way in which the programme was organised, fifteen (a remarkable number) said that the organisation of breakout sessions was the conference's best aspect. Ten said that it was the organisation of and presentation by focus groups, with three references each to the youth and gender groups. Other more general comments were "interesting sessions", and well presented papers. Two respondents commented positively on the interactive nature of discussions. Others commented on the logistical aspects of the conference: overall organisation received 5 comments, the cybercafe 3; "accueil" (reception); 5; coffee breaks, 2; availability of documentation and excellent equipment in working order. The overall conference environment received one comment, and conference facilities in general another. The simultaneous interpretation was also commended. Question twenty-one: least liked aspects of the conference (Open-ended question) Participants were asked which aspect(s) of the conference they liked least. While 92 percent of respondents answered the previous question on what aspect of the conference they liked best, only seventy-one percent responded to this question of what they liked least about the conference and five percent of these replied "nothing." Thus, thirty-four percent of respondents did not find anything they "liked least." The significantly lower percentage of respondents to the "liked least" question seems to indicate a reasonably high level of satisfaction of participants with the conference. The "liked least" responses can be divided into issues of programme and content, session management and conference logistics. On programme and content:
On logistics of conference organisation, the following were cited as "least liked" aspects of the conference:
One respondent each cited these aspects of conference organisation as least liked:
One respondent cited overall logistics and organisation of the Conference as the aspect he liked least. Conference organisers take very seriously the critiques that appeared several times (regarding payment of Daily Subsistence Allowance to sponsored participants, registration and late delivery of documents). The late delivery of documents (resulting in part from underestimation of the number of participants and insufficient copies being printed) and will discuss these in depth with the ECA administration and the organisers of ADF 2000. Question twenty-two: most useful conference sessions (Open-ended question) Respondents were asked which conference sessions they found most useful. Responses were quite striking in that respondents mentioned virtually every session (with the exception of the information marketplace), including the launching of the ITCA. Ten respondents said that they rated "all" the sessions as "most useful." Nine respondents found the plenaries most useful, with several participants citing the Monday morning plenary as the best among the plenaries. More than five respondents each selected each of the sub-theme presentations as most useful, but overall the most highly rated was that on democratisation of access (eight respondents) followed by that on infrastructure (seven responses). Respondents in general did not refer to specific sessions so much as specific topics, but those sessions/topics that recorded more responses as "most useful" than others were:
Although not strictly sessions, one response called "corridor sessions" most useful, and another found the conference documentation and the exhibit to meet this criterion. Two disgruntled participants said that none of the sessions stood out as most useful. The above distribution indicates that virtually all of the programme sessions hit the mark with some of the participants. Question twenty-three: least useful conference sessions (Open-ended question) Respondents were asked which conference sessions they found least useful. While 85 percent of evaluation questionnaire respondents replied to the previous question on "most useful" conference sessions, only 40 percent replied to question twenty-three on the "least useful" conference sessions, which seems to indicate that most participants found most sessions useful. Among the 40 percent who replied, five respondents said that the found "none" of the sessions "least useful." Thus only 41 respondents (thirty-five percent of those submitting questionnaires) rated any of the sessions as least useful. The session that received the highest number of responses as least useful was the information marketplace (five responses). The irony of the responses to the "least useful" question is that many of the responses were the same as those received to the "most useful" question. The e-commerce workshop and session on e-commerce agenda for MSEs were the subject of widely varying opinions. While appearing above as the most commended of sessions, at the same time three respondents found the e-commerce workshop "least useful" while one respondent gave this rating to the e-commerce agenda session. Plenaries were highly rated above, but three respondents found the plenary sessions among the least useful. Five respondents labeled the "political" sessions as the least useful, but did not further identify which sessions they regarded as the political ones. Other sessions mentioned in the responses to this question were the governance theme presentation (two responses), the private sector focus group (two responses), the Think Tank plenary, and the poster exhibit session. One respondent found all the sessions on youth, gender and governance "least useful" because "once the other issues are resolved, these areas will be taken care of automatically." While not a specific session, one reply to this question cited chairs that indulged in overly long session introductions as leas useful. Another found that the focus group meetings were not useful because they had no pre-set agenda. Question twenty-four: overall effectiveness of the conference Asked to give an overall effectiveness rating to the Conference, two thirds of respondents replied in the two highest categories, while an additional twenty percent gave a medium rating. Eight percent replied in the low and low medium ranges. Question twenty-five: effective conference features (Open-ended question) Conference participants were asked what features of the Conference they regarded as contributing to its effectiveness. (Seventy-three percent of those who filled in the questionnaire responded to this question). (Percentages in the pie chart exceed 100% because participants could give more than one response to this question.)
Twenty-one respondents (twenty-five percent of respondents) singled out the conference planning and organisation as contributing to its effectiveness. Nineteen respondents (twenty-three percent of respondents) uniquely mentioned the high level of conference presenters. Eleven respondents cited the diversity and quality of participants, while another three found commendable the bringing in of stakeholder groups. Ten respondents praised the sharing of African experiences in the use of ICTs. Nine felt that the selection of the overall conference theme and its subthemes (another four respondents) had made the conference effective. Seven respondents noted the high level of interest and engagement of participants. As to the nature of the presentations, some five respondents said that they supported strongly the organisation of the programme by introduction of issues at plenary session and then breakout into smaller groups to discuss specific aspects of the larger topic. Five respondents underlined the high level of discussion as an effective conference feature. Four replies mentioned the excellence of the conference facilities, with one more specific reference to the use of technology at conference sessions. Three respondents noted the importance of programme design, with three more responding particularly positively to the parallel or breakout sessions. Features of the conference that received two specific citations included: quality of conference documentation, refreshment breaks (lunch and coffee breaks), the interactive and participatory nature of the conference, opportunities for networking and the commitment of the organisers, and the presence of high level government officials. The following conference features were also mentioned (one response each) as contributing to conference effectiveness:
Question twenty-six: featured detracting from conference effectiveness (Open-ended question) Conference participants were asked what features of the Conference they regarded as detracting from its effectiveness. Again, as in questions twenty-one and twenty-three, many respondents did not answer the question requesting a critique of the conference, perhaps indicating their satisfaction with it. Five percent of respondents to this question said specifically that "none" of the features detracted from conference effectiveness, while 35% of those who returned the questionnaire did not reply to the question. Thus a total of forty percent of respondents cited no negative features of the conference. Many of the responses to this question were repetitions of question twenty-one and twenty-three above on the least liked aspect of the conference and the least useful conference sessions. Of the sixty percent who did reply to this question, comments were divided between the areas of programme organisation, with a major subset here dealing with time management issues and with substance of the programme, logistics and participants. Programme organisation Many of the comments on programme organisation reflected feeling that the programme was "too rich", with too much content. Six respondents said that there were too many themes, while another six said that there were too many breakouts. Some of this latter group felt that the some of the topics of the breakouts could have been combined. Several of those who made these comments about too many breakouts said that they felt frustrated because they were unable to choose easily between parallel sessions all of which interested them. As in question twenty-three above, two respondents complained about "too many political speeches." One participant found the format of the programme "too rigid." Another respondent said that presenters needed to make more use of information technology in their presentations. In the area of time management, a total of thirty respondents commented on this aspect (forty-three percent of those who replied to this question), indicating that it was a very significant area for concern. Although the comments were phrased in diverse ways, the thrust of most was that they wanted more time to discuss and to have more meaningful discussions. This in itself underlines the high degree of engagement of participants at the Forum. Their comments pointed out various aspects of inadequate time management that prevented them from having fruitful discussion time. The most general comment was that sessions started late because of participants arriving late (six mentions). Five participants complained of lengthy and repetitive statements from the floor. Five participants said that there were too many panelists at each session to be effective and to allow for sufficient discussion time. Two others cited poor time management of sessions by chairpersons. One participant said that the whole programme was too long, exhausting participants. On the content and substance of the programme, one respondent complained of lack of case studies. Another said that there was too much focus on high tech solutions, where he felt that rural and poor communities needed low tech ones. Two respondents felt that there was insufficient information provided about possibilities for funding and support. With regard to management of individual sessions, two respondents felt that the chair and presenters were not synchronised in some sessions: they did not seem to be on the same topic. Two participants criticised session chairs for failing to draw out concrete recommendations from their sessions. A further two respondents felt that there should have been closer adherence to the themes and subthemes of the conference in breakout sessions. Two respondents called for more geographical distribution in the origin of presenters (feeling that there were too many presenters from Egypt, Senegal and South Africa). Two other respondents complained of lack of substance in presentations - one said that abstract discussions of development were not meaningful, while the other said that some presentations lack substance. One respondent said that conference proceedings were not well communicated (ECA needed to make greater efforts to inform participants that each day's proceedings were summarised on the Web site and distributed to the conference site and to the media both at the forum and outside in print press releases almost as soon as the day's sessions concluded). About half the responses to this question dealt with logistics of the conference organisation. Ten respondents said the delay in payment of per diem, in registration and in distribution of documents detracted from conference effectiveness. They noted that delays in these three areas kept delegates from the sessions and thereby directly detracted from conference effectiveness. Three respondents mentioned unreliable transport to/from the Hilton Hotel as a problem area. Two respondents said that they needed more information before arrival in Addis Ababa (again ECA needed to make greater efforts to inform participants about the Conference Web site which contained a full array of pre-conference information). Other areas which received one comment each were:
Regarding the number and composition of participants, one respondent said that the large number of participants detracted from the effectiveness of the conference and prevented good discussion. Another felt that ECA should restrict participants to those with power to make decisions, saying "ECA should target those in the public or private sector whose decisions make things happen or not." Question twenty-seven: suggestions for improvement of ADF 2000 (Open-ended question) The last question was an open-ended one, requesting suggestions to ECA to improve ADF 2000. Participants contributed a huge variety of constructive responses to this question, indicating belief in the ADF concept and genuine desire for subsequent fora to succeed better. A very high level of respondents answered this question -eighty-four percent. Several respondents made suggestions for topics of future ADFs. These included:
One respondent made no suggestion for a particular topic, but recommended that ECA "choose practical topics." Several respondents felt that the topic of ADF '99 had not been exhausted and recommended future sessions or additional conferences on these aspects of the 1999 topic: ICTs and agriculture, including agricultural information systems
Other suggestions related to areas of possible improvement of programme organisation and of overall logistics of the conference. With regard to programme organisation, the most frequent suggestion was for strict time management, with fifteen responses centering on this issue. Related points made in this regard were to "limit interventions and presentations by politicians" (two responses), allow more time for discussions (two responses), and either shorten the agenda or lengthen the time period of the Forum. Breakout groups, they said, should not be so large as to inhibit discussion. Two respondents also urged a decrease in the number of parallel sessions at any one time so that participants had an opportunity to attend more sessions in which they were interested. With regard to time allocation, three participants asked that more leisure time be built in to the Forum so that they could visit Addis Ababa; two respondents wanted more time for networking built into the programme. One respondent each said that they wanted to see the following features in the programme:
Some five respondents focused on the need to build follow up mechanisms and commitment into the Forum programme. They said that there should be explicit follow up mechanisms for each Forum, including mechanisms for national level follow up. Organisers should try to secure commitment from the participants to take part in follow up. One participant noted that the selection of chairpersons was a critical success factor of the Forum. Good chairs made a significant difference. Each chair should take on the responsibility of securing tangible outcomes and a limited number of concrete proposals from his/her session. Chairs should also try to convene their panels in advance to make their sessions better coordinated and organised. Another participant suggested that country delegations should prepare and bring to the Conference (but not necessarily present) country reports. With regard to participants, some respondents (three) said that the overall number of participants should be reduced, while others said that more should be invited per country. There was a strong recommendation (five respondents) to continue to invite all stakeholders, with particular mention made of women, youth, NGOs, labor unions, civil society in general, and the private sector, including the domestic private sector. Four respondents each urged more participation from civil society and the private sector, while one said that participants should be limited to the public sector and high government officials because their attendance makes a difference. At the same time, another urged that more technical participants be invited. On logistics, as in earlier questions, participants emphasised the need for improved procedures for registration and securing of badges, for payment of per diem and for distribution of documents. Some five respondents asked for the documents in advance, with the possibility of downloading them from the Conference Web site (they noted that the invitations should say that the documents could be secured this way). They wanted more information on conference logistics both at the conference and in advance of their travel to Addis Ababa (again the use of the Web site to post this information should be included in the invitations). They urged ADF 2000 organisers to get the invitations out early and to let participants know as soon as possible whether they were sponsored or not. Three participants urged that conference organisers involve the embassies in Addis Ababa early in the preparation of ADF 2000. Respondents asked for the continuation of the cybercafe, and three respondents hoped for the introduction of some kind of conference messaging system so that participants could contact each other more easily during the Forum. Some additional logistics features that were requested (one respondent on each):
Some respondents used the opportunity of this question to commend the organisers on ADF’99 and to encourage the efforts to continue. Among the specific comments were: "Good job, please continue this effort." "We need more follow up to this conference- there's still lots to discuss." Sincere thanks to DISD/ECA for wonderful organisation and their efforts on behalf of African development." "Keep it up." "Well done."
Summary The evaluation results indicate strongly that the Forum achieved its objectives to be an African venue to develop an African-led development agenda. Participants gave very high marks to the Forum for helping them identify policy options and for giving them ideas on enhancing African economic development. The percentage of those who said that they would follow up the Forum with actions and initiatives in their countries was overwhelming. The respondents also rated very highly the theme of the Forum for relevance to their development concerns. On organisation of the conference, they commended ECA for excellent programme design and participant selection. Respondents were particularly pleased with the diversity and quality of participants and the inclusion of a wide variety of stakeholder groups, including development partners, which gave them rich possibilities for networking. Efforts, however, need to be increased to ensure gender balance to make the African Development Forum truly representative of stakeholders in African development. While respondents responded very favourably to the plenary/breakout mode of organisation and commended the high quality of presentations, they were anxious for more and better opportunities for discussion that could be made possible by having fewer presentations per session and better moderation by chairs. The quality of conference documentation received high acclaim. There was universal praise for the conference facilities, with high approval for the exhibit and cybercafe as features that should become a regular part of future ADFs. The aspects of Forum logistics that came in for heavy criticism were per diem payments, registration (delays in receiving badges) and delays in receiving documents. Future ADF organisers must remedy these latter areas in order to ensure that they do not detract from the overall Forum experience, to which participants gave positive approval.
Opening Session - Sunday, 24 October 1999 Setting the Scene - Monday, 25 October 1999 Closing Session - Thursday, 28 October 1999 Annex I - The Way Forward to a people-centred African Information Society Annex III - ADF '99 Documentation Annex IV - PARTNERS in adf ’99 Annex V - List of Participants |
Despite the open-ended nature of the question, several responses
were commonly cited.