49425

                                         Core Course:
         Building Knowledge and Expertise in Infrastructure Finance

Ray C. Rist                  WBI Evaluation Unit World Bank                         Natalie Deveaux
Advisor                                                                           Evaluation Analyst
(202) 458-5625                                                                       (202) 473-1399


Number 14                                                                             August 1998


Dailami, Mansoor
(Notation: The World Bank Institute was formerly called the Economic Development Institute
(EDI), as reflected in some text)

The Economic Development Institute (EDI), in partnership with the University of Maryland
Business School conducted a Core Course on infrastructure finance in Washington, D.C.,
from June 15-26, 1998. A total of 67 participants from 16 countries attended the course,
including government officials, private executives, and financiers. The course covered several
topics, including: strategies for risk mitigation, capital market financing opportunities,
strategies for project appraisal, cash flow analysis, and legal issues. The methods of
instruction used were formal presentation, study groups, and simulated case studies.

An evaluation was conducted by the EDI Evaluation Unit (EDIES) using an end-of-course
questionnaire. Fifty-six of the 67 participants (83.6%), completed the evaluation. The
questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first was a survey of participants' opinions of the
course content and delivery. Respondents were asked to rate aspects of the course, such as
relevance, thoroughness, training materials and quality of instruction. The second section
attempted to gauge the increase of knowledge gained from the course. This was done using
a set of self-assessment questions. Both sections used a 6-point Likert type scale that
ranged from 1 = minimum to 6 = maximum.

Respondents had varied educational levels and professional backgrounds. They held either
Ph.D.s (14 of 56 respondents), MBAs (12), Masters other than MBAs (15) or Bachelors (11).
Two-thirds of respondents worked in the public sector and one-third worked in the private
sector. Thirty-three of the respondents had less than 5 years experience in infrastructure and
finance and/or development. Fourteen had between 5 and 15 years experience and 8
respondents had over 15 years experience. Ten of the 54 respondents were women. Results
from the evaluation are summarized below.



     l  One aspect of the course received especially favorable responses. The question
        asked if the course provided participants with new information. Sixty-nine percent
        (N=55) of respondents indicated that this aspect of the course fulfilled or exceeded
        their expectations. The mean score for this item was 4.87, which was the highest
        mean of the evaluation. However, written comments revealed that a few topics were
        considered too theoretical.


     l  One specific indicator received a relatively high average mean score (mean=4.64).
        This item addressed the selection of readings and supporting materials. Trainers may
        wish to use the same or similar materials again in the future.


     l  One noted weakness was the depth of the course content. Respondents gave this
        criteria a mean score of 4.17, the lowest recorded. This would indicate that
        participants may benefit from additional course time, or from a more advanced
        starting point for the course.

lTwo lower than average scores were observed that related to course delivery. One was
 on the usefulness of the practice exercises (mean=4.24) and the other was the
 degree to which trainers communicated their messages well (mean=4.28). When
 looking for areas to improve this course, organizers may focus on these two aspects.


lThe evaluation highlighted a notable difference between the responses from Bachelor
 degree holders and Ph.D. holders on the question, "Was this course a worthwhile use
 of your time?". For respondents with Bachelor degrees (N=11), the average mean
 score was 4.36, while for Ph.D. holders (N=14), the average mean score was 4.93.
 Considering the specific needs of participants with Bachelor degrees, or changing to a
 more narrowly focused target audience may improve overall satisfaction rates.


lPre/post course mean scores were used to estimate participants' knowledge of
 selected topics before and after the course. The largest gain in perceived knowledge
 was in "the ability to appreciate the importance of clear systems of risk identification
 and allocation". This item had a pre-course mean of 3.33 and a post-course mean of
 5.25. The gain was 1.93, or 57.9 percent. Written comments also suggested a high
 degree of satisfaction with the instructor of this topic.


lThere were some limitations to this evaluation. First, the design of the pre/post self-
 assessment measures only the perceived level of knowledge at either time. It does
 not measure the actual level of knowledge gain. For this, a pre/post course cognitive
 test must be done. Also, this evaluation only captures the respondents' reactions
 upon completion of the course. Some time after the course, when attempts are made
 to put the lessons learned into practice, respondents' opinions may change.