RESULTS OF 2010 – 2011 PROGRAMME AUDIT

In order to get feedback from members about their requirements for the programme for season 2010 – 2011, a page was set up on the forum on this web site  HERE with a proforma check list. Paper copies were also distributed to all members who needed them. Members were asked to ‘score’ each of the topics between 0 (not interested) and 5 (my favourite). There has been virtually a 100% response and the results of the audit are shown below:

Ref Topic Total marks % of members allocatiing Maximum marks (5)
 Number of Occurances in 2009-10 programme
A Talk by “Experts” about photography techniques 136 72 0
K Structured training during club evenings (ie Richard Weston events) 135 76 4
J Practical sessions external to club (ie Field Trips) 104 29 4
B Internal competitions 104 24 6
N Presentations by club members on specific subjects (ie RAW mode, composition etc) 103 21 0
I Practical sessions within the club environment 103 21 2
C External competitions 102 29 6
H Illustrated talks on specialist subject (ie Cycling, Badgers etc) 101 14 3
F Picture sharing (Members explaining their techniques) 98 34 5
P Projects 96 33 4
L Structured training outside club evenings (ie Photoshop special interest group) 93 10 5
O Practical studio work (ie Portraits) 81 21 0
M Joint activities in the community (ie 2004 Calendar for “Animals in Need”) 79 7 0
G Illustrated talks (Travelogues) 69 4 0
E L&CPU folios 61 4 5
D National competitions 53 4 0

.

.

.

Supplementary questions:

Are you interested in continuing with slides?   NO – 24   YES – 4

Are you interested in working for an RPS or PAGB qualification?   NO – 19  YES – 5  Possibly 4

Other suggestions:

There was a section of the audit available for open suggestions about improving the programme. Mostly these were concerned with the method of implementation of the above topics. A copy of the full analysis can be obtained from Sally Read.

.

.

.

The results were reviewed with the members on 11th March 2010. The audit has supplied very useful feedback and the committee thanked all the members for their contribution.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The audit showed the wishes of the members, but this should not be taken as a commitment for the committee necessarily to satisfy all the requirements immediately as there are cost implications which will have to be resolved. Also it is important to consider all the members at all levels of experience and produce a balanced progamme which has some interest for everyone.

2. A straightforward count of the marks gives a fairly accurate record of where the members interests lie. However a slightly more relevant analysis is to consider what percentage of the members thought each topic to be their favourite and prioritise in that order.

3. The major issue arising is that we are not catering at present for talks by experts about photographic techniques – although this is the second most popular requirement. Prior to the audit this was thought to be an issue as the current mix of members considers “training” to be high on their list of requirements and this is reflected in the results. The club has not considered this to be a primary item in it’s constitution in the past. It is very difficult to deal with training a group who are at such differing levels of experience and competence. This is why the Special interest Groups have been created to deal with some of this outside the normal club nights.

4. The topics showing the lowest marks were discussed at the review.

The Travelogues were thought to be consigned to history and have little value these days.

The lack of interest in National competitions was thought to be due to our lack of experience in entering local L&CPU events. When we were showing some success at this then we would naturally mature into the National competitions. It was agreed generally that we were quite capable of work at the standard required for the L&CPU competitions and should enter next year.

The L&CPU folios have attracted little interest and the evenings are generally poorly attended. The main message that came from the members was that the folios were no longer creatively stimulating and the content has often been seen before. it was suggested that it would be better to make the folios available for inspection by those members who were interersted but not to occupy a full evening with them.

If you have any questions about the above please contact the undersigned or Sally Read

John Dennis

Communication Officer

13th March 2010