|
TIMEBAR WORKSHOP (24 May 2010) 
| | Average | | Question | Rating | | What did you think of the choice of subject for the course? | 1.35 | | How well do you think the course met its objectives? | 1.54 | | How useful did you find the summary and review of the cases? | 1.50 | | Did you feel that the overall level of the presentations took into account today's delegates knowledge? (Please Circle) | y=26 |
Typical comments received | What did you think of the choice of subject for the course? | | Excellent | | Useful and interesting subject | | | | How well do you think the course met its objectives? | | Very well | | Course met objectives, updated and clarified position on timebar | | | | How would you rate the interaction opening session;Timebar Case Studies? | | Very good, caused some good debate | | Useful practical to assist understanding | | Working in groups allowed for good debate, was useful to have the facilitators on our table | | | | Were the team mediators useful? Please add comments. | | Yes, answered my questions, provided good feedback | | Very good. Right level of interaction, not just telling us the answers | | Helped to direct our discussions |
ACTUARIAL ESTIMATIONS OF LIABILITIES IN COMMUTATIONS (2 December 2009) 
This is harder than it looks Summary of feedback forms | | Average | | Question | Rating | | What did you think of the choice of subject for the course? | 1.77 | | How well do you think the course met its objectives? | 1.87 | | Was there enough time for questions? | 1.93 | | Would you have liked more of a particular subject? | 2.30 | | What do you think of the quality/structure of the course content and would | 2.14 | | you make any changes? | | | Did you feel that the overall level of presentations took into account today's | Y=31 | | delegates knowledge? | | | What did you think of the quality/content of the materials used? | 1.71 | | Overall, what did you think of the venue, directions,facilities, catering, training room? | 2.04 | | How would you rate the overall organisation of the event? | 1.52 |
Ratings: 1 = Excellent ; 5 = Poor Typical comments received | How would you rate the interactive negotiation "Pollution Commutation"? | | Very good | | Interesting but need to take in a large amount of detail in a short space of time, obviously there are varying levels of ability in any team | | More lively than I was expecting | | | | How would you rate the session "Other Latent Claims"? | | Excellent, frustrating, worrying!!! | | Helpful | | Superb | | | | Would you have liked more of a particular subject? | | Perhaps more time on claims issues as that is my field rather than the financial bits | | No, highly interesting, more of such interesting events would be good | | The "Number" development - how figures are arrived at | | | | What did you think of the quality/structure of the course content and would you make any changes? | | Enjoyed the lectures - interactive sessions were mixed | | Great but maybe allow more time for each topic - poss 2 days? | | Excellent | | Would have preferred more emphasis on APH insurance & its application to re/insurance policies - Treat Part VII as separate seminar? | | Very good information content - enjoyed all aspects | | Good variety of topics | | Nice variety between lectures and interaction | | Very good, coherent, interactive sessions very informative | | More time for questions |
APH CLAIMS: THE NEVER ENDING STORY (7 May 2009) 
Summary of feedback forms | | Average | | Question | Rating | | What did you think of the choice of subject for the course? | 1.24 | | How well do you think the course met its objectives? | 1.52 | | Was there enough time for questions? | 1.61 | | What do you think of the quality/structure of the course content and would | 1.54 | | you make any changes? | | | Did you feel that the overall level of presentations took into account today's | Y=39 | | delegates knowledge? | N=2, | | What did you think of the quality/content of the materials used? | 1.63 | | Overall, what did you think of the venue? | 1.15 | | How would you rate the overall organisation of the event? | 1.33 |
Ratings: 1 = Excellent ; 2 = Very Good Typical comments received | Subject | Good, does what it says on the tin | | | | | Objectives | One of the best courses I have attended in recent times. | | | Generally excellent, but run out of time. | | | | | Content | More time needed for exercises. | | | Excellent exercises but more time needed. | | | | | Presentations | Good idea to get a snapshot of delegates experience & requirements | | | Informative, succinct with some interesting points for the future. | | | |
TOMORROW'S LEGACY:2009 AND BEYOND (24 March 2009)  Mock arbitration in full cry
Summary of Feedback Forms | | Average | | Question | Rating | | What did you think of the choice of subject for the course? | 1.73 | | How well do you think the course met its objectives? | 1.76 | | Was there enough time for questions? | 2.06 | | What do you think of the quality/structure of the course content and would | 1.79 | | you make any changes? | | | Did you feel that the overall level of presentations took into account today's | Y=32 | | delegates knowledge? | N=1, | | What did you think of the quality/content of the materials used? | 1.70 | | Overall, what did you think of the venue? | 1.42 | | How would you rate the overall organisation of the event? | 1.42 |
Ratings: 1 = Excellent ; 2 = Very Good Typical comments received | Subject | Course focused well on current issues. | | | | | Objectives | Very well, don't change a winning formula. | | | Very good, gave an overview of current market conditions. | | | | | Content | More time, some topics were rushed. | | | Very good, no change needed. | | | | | Presentations | Pitched at just the right level. | | | Subject covered bottom to top and something for everyone. | | | The mock arbitration was excellent and well put together. | | | |
ACTUARIAL ESTIMATIONS OF LIABILITIES IN COMMUTATIONS (2 December 2009) Summary of feedback forms | | Average | | Question | Rating | | What did you think of the choice of subject for the course? | 1.77 | | How well do you think the course met its objectives? | 1.87 | | Was there enough time for questions? | 1.93 | | Would you have liked more of a particular subject? | 2.30 | | What do you think of the quality/structure of the course content and would | 2.14 | | you make any changes? | | | Did you feel that the overall level of presentations took into account today's | Y=31 | | delegates knowledge? | | | What did you think of the quality/content of the materials used? | 1.71 | | Overall, what did you think of the venue, directions,facilities, catering, training room? | 2.04 | | How would you rate the overall organisation of the event? | 1.52 |
Ratings: 1 = Excellent ; 5 = Poor Typical comments received | How would you rate the interactive negotiation "Pollution Commutation"? | | Very good | | Interesting but need to take in a large amount of detail in a short space of time, obviously there are varying levels of ability in any team | | More lively than I was expecting | | | | How would you rate the session "Other Latent Claims"? | | Excellent, frustrating, worrying!!! | | Helpful | | Superb | | | | Would you have liked more of a particular subject? | | Perhaps more time on claims issues as that is my field rather than the financial bits | | No, highly interesting, more of such interesting events would be good | | The "Number" development - how figures are arrived at | | | | What did you think of the quality/structure of the course content and would you make any changes? | | Enjoyed the lectures - interactive sessions were mixed | | Great but maybe allow more time for each topic - poss 2 days? | | Excellent | | Would have preferred more emphasis on APH insurance & its application to re/insurance policies - Treat Part VII as separate seminar? | | Very good information content - enjoyed all aspects | | Good variety of topics | | Nice variety between lectures and interaction | | Very good, coherent, interactive sessions very informative | | More time for questions |
APH CLAIMS: THE NEVER ENDING STORY (7 May 2009) 
Summary of feedback forms | | Average | | Question | Rating | | What did you think of the choice of subject for the course? | 1.24 | | How well do you think the course met its objectives? | 1.52 | | Was there enough time for questions? | 1.61 | | What do you think of the quality/structure of the course content and would | 1.54 | | you make any changes? | | | Did you feel that the overall level of presentations took into account today's | Y=39 | | delegates knowledge? | N=2, | | What did you think of the quality/content of the materials used? | 1.63 | | Overall, what did you think of the venue? | 1.15 | | How would you rate the overall organisation of the event? | 1.33 |
Ratings: 1 = Excellent ; 2 = Very Good Typical comments received | Subject | Good, does what it says on the tin | | | | | Objectives | One of the best courses I have attended in recent times. | | | Generally excellent, but run out of time. | | | | | Content | More time needed for exercises. | | | Excellent exercises but more time needed. | | | | | Presentations | Good idea to get a snapshot of delegates experience & requirements | | | Informative, succinct with some interesting points for the future. | | | |
TOMORROW'S LEGACY:2009 AND BEYOND (24 March 2009)
Summary of Feedback Forms | | Average | | Question | Rating | | What did you think of the choice of subject for the course? | 1.73 | | How well do you think the course met its objectives? | 1.76 | | Was there enough time for questions? | 2.06 | | What do you think of the quality/structure of the course content and would | 1.79 | | you make any changes? | | | Did you feel that the overall level of presentations took into account today's | Y=32 | | delegates knowledge? | N=1, | | What did you think of the quality/content of the materials used? | 1.70 | | Overall, what did you think of the venue? | 1.42 | | How would you rate the overall organisation of the event? | 1.42 |
Ratings: 1 = Excellent ; 2 = Very Good Typical comments received | Subject | Course focused well on current issues. | | | | | Objectives | Very well, don't change a winning formula. | | | Very good, gave an overview of current market conditions. | | | | | Content | More time, some topics were rushed. | | | Very good, no change needed. | | | | | Presentations | Pitched at just the right level. | | | Subject covered bottom to top and something for everyone. | | | The mock arbitration was excellent and well put together. | | | |
|
