1

MID-OF-PROJECT EVALUATION REPORT


Project: FTFL Management Track Training
Insight Institute of Learning
Banani, Dhaka.



Prepared by:

Masud Ahmed
Fahmina Chowdhury
Afrida Alim Nisha
Shammi Akhter




Prepared for:

Management Team – Insight Institute of Learning.




Date: Sunday, July 20, 2014

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides findings from the Mid-of-Project Evaluation (MoPE) of FTFL –Management
Track Training in Insight Institute of Learning. This independent evaluation was conducted by FTFL
project team members (Names Listed on the top page). The FTFL project aimed primarily to equip the
fresh graduates from various educational institutes in Bangladesh with Industry focused ICT/IT
knowledge/training and ensure industry suitability. Supervised by the LICT, BASIS, BITM and funded
by the World Bank, the program started its 1
st
phase in BARD, Comilla (Residential) and continuation of
it in Dhaka with domain specific trainings.
Methods

To assess the management track training outcomes, we conducted an in-house group discussion session
within the FTFL project team in Insight. As input we provided – observation, logistic shortfalls, in-
session requirements mentioned by the participants, feedbacks from the trainers, evaluation report
provided after each training session.
It’s imperative to mention that – this evaluation is not an end of project evaluation assessment.
After 2 weeks of training sessions in Insight (6/7/2014 to 17/07/2014), this report has been generated to
assess the gaps and improve further, within the team.
Key Findings

1. For the FTFL project team – the job description was not clear, individually.
2. In-Class topics, under four (4) modules need further renaming and contents of these topics must
relate to the incubator session’s final outcome.
3. After repeated feedback to the trainers, it was rarely found that they were relating their lectures to
the ICT industry of Bangladesh.
4. Number of Computer Labs was not sufficient compared to BITM, BCC or BARD Comilla.
5. Costing for the project needs to be reviewed by the Top management. Usually, a pre-project budget
helps to assess whether the costs were realistic or not.
6. Within the team, one member was essential who had prior Project work experiences.
3

Organizational Assessment: Measuring Capabilities and Actual Scenario

1. Inappropriate job assignment due to lack of competency checks within the team. (Considering it as an
ex-post facto outcome).
2. Inaccurate Time Management due to various requirements from various in-house sources, with very
little time frame. Example: Preparation of the FTFL KIT for the participants; last minute preparation was
hectic and MD’s personal effort was needed on an urgent basis.
3. With prolific academic background in the Top Management (Honorable Chairman & Director of
ACAD), it was a malfunction, not to have alternate Trainers for any absent/regretting faculty. It could be
an Emergency also.
4. Decisions on preparing, finalizing and uploading the Class Routine were changed several times.
5. Start and end time of classes in management track training was not conforming to the BASIS(BITM)
outlines.
6. Within the agreed/signed MoU, the payment procedures or stipulations are not in Insight’s favor. To be
precise, there is no clear clause to ensure on time payment.
7. Appointments with various, esteemed industry specialists in ICT and entrepreneurs were suspended or
delayed several times while developing the Cases, which caused severe delays in Finishing-off and
meeting deadlines. Subsequently, in-house Quality assurance team comprising honorable Chairman and
Director ACAD could not get sufficient time to review and remark.
8. Quantity of PPT Slides were stipulated by the supervising authority (BASIS,WB) whereas, almost all
the Trainers were skeptic about such numbers of PPTs. Further clarifications from the team reassured
them about quality. Some trainers used their own slides, again this delayed the “Compilation deadline”
several times.
9. Coordination between admin and the “project FTFL” team took longer time to settle down.
Costing Component:

Projected cost Vs Actual Cost
1. Remunerations for the resource persons/trainers were clustered and finalized by the top management.
In some cases, it was scuffling with the estimated cost. Honorable MD’s specific advises are available on
this issue.
2. Director-Admin had an estimated cost for the 1
st
phase of the FTFL management track training, prior to
the start. A quick review revealed –

4

Insight Institution of Learning
FTFL Budgeting Phase 1(End of 2 weeks)

Approved cost for
8 weeks TK
Actual cost for 2
weeks TK
Projection cost for the
next 6 weeks TK
Consumable Item 53520 18119 Probable Short fall of
18956
Capital item 563997 161031 Probable Short fall of
80127



As per MoU (hr) Actual (hr) Remark
Total number of trainning
days
35 43 (8 incubator
session added)
Incubator Sessions are 8
am to 2 pm noon. 6 hours
Number of classes per day 2 2
Number of Topic wise class
hour per day
2 * 2.5 hr = 5 hr 2 * 2 hr= 4 hr
Total number of class hour 5 * 35= 175 hr (35 * 4 hr )+ (8 * 6 hr )=
188 hr

Group-Work 0 (7*1hr) + (22*1.5hr)=
40 hr
7 sessions in Ramadan, 22
Sessions after Ramadan
Group Presentation 0 (4*1hr) + (12*1.5hr)=
22 hr
4 Presentations in
Ramadan, 12
Presentations after
Ramadan
Motivational/ Industrial
Speaker
0 (5*1hr)+ (17*1.5 hr)=
30.5 hr
5 Speakers in Ramadan,
17 Speakers after
Ramadan.

Total hr 175 hr 272 hr


5



Recommendation: Yet to Include.
Conclusion: Yet to Includ.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful