5. Reflection on the pilot

Competence of the participants

The participants filled out the competency questionnaire with the same questions both at the beginning and at the end of the coaching. Scale of 1–4.

In the initial survey, the participants rated as their best skills

setting goals (2.7)
collecting assessment data (2.6)
impacting as a social phenomenon (2.5)

The following points were evaluated as the weakest skills:

selection and use of meters (2.2)
managing impact work (2.2)
communication about impacting (2.2)
assessment coordination and management (2.2)

Based on the assessment of the closing survey, it can be observed that the participants felt that their own competence had increased at all points to be evaluated.

In the final survey, the participants still rated as their best skills

setting goals (3.3)
collecting assessment data (3.2)
impacting as a social phenomenon (3.1)

Competence in managing impact work was the weakest point (2.8), but even there, competence had increased during the coaching.

Some of the participants found it difficult to evaluate their own competence. In the initial survey, one participant wondered whether it was actually a matter of competence or a matter of what one spends their working time for and what activities one focuses on. In the closing survey, many participants stated that it was difficult to assess their own competence immediately after the coaching.

"It is very difficult to assess one’s own competence, earlier and especially now, when it seems that the ideas have just started to flow."

It takes time to digest the content of the coaching, as well as to put things into practice, so the increase in one’s own competence may only be seen later.

The participants also noted that, as there may still be a lot of development in terms of the themes of impacting and assessment, it is not possible to state that one’s own skills are excellent at this point, even if the skills increased a lot with the coaching.

“There has been a lot of new information and its implementation will, of course, take its time, but there were good tips about what to focus on and what kind of training is needed in the future with the operators in the sector.”

What was successful? These points should be adhered to in the following coaching sessions:

The application process was a significant factor in the strong commitment of the participants, so it is worth holding on to.
There was enough coaching content. There is no point in fitting in more content in the coaching. There are differences in the participants’ starting levels, which should be taken into account when building the coaching content.
The coaching schedule worked well, even though it was a little tight. It helped that the participants were aware of the schedules from the very beginning. They already knew at the application stage what they were committing to and what would happen at which stage. If the coaching had continued beyond the spring season to autumn, the coaching structure could have easily suffered.
Good communication was the key to success.
The on-site days worked well and were enjoyed by the participants. The length of the coaching days (from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.) was functional and also made it possible to travel to another location during the same day.
The division of work between the coaches was clear, which made the work easier. It was also good that entire days were set aside for planning, which we felt were more effective than numerous shorter planning meetings.

What needs development? The following points could be considered in the future:

The content volume of the first day was huge. This could also be divided into two on-site days, which would, of course, increase the number of on-site days and thus the costs.
The content of the coaching was considered good, but more help was needed to analyse the information. In the future, it could be considered whether the coaching programme could be supplemented, for example, with coaching webinars open to everyone, etc.
Slack worked well as a communication channel. However, there was very little discussion among the participants. In the future, it could be considered whether there would be an even greater need for such sharing and how it could be supported and facilitated.
The participant feedback revealed that there could be more talk about the working time required by the coaching. In addition to the schedules, in the future it is also good to discuss the fact that making an assessment plan for one’s organisation and giving peer feedback also requires time, and that the participants themselves must schedule this in their own calendar.
Individual coaching was generally considered a good and functional model. In the future, it is good to explain in more detail that the organisation’s own preparation for the meeting will increase the benefits of the meeting. For example, the participants could send their questions to their own coach in advance.
Peer feedback was also considered good. Some of the participants wished that the feedback could have been given verbally. In the future, it is therefore a good idea to encourage the participants so that, if they so wish, they can jointly agree, for example, on giving each other feedback in an online meeting. In addition, some participants wished that the feedback had been given in groups of three organisations. In this way, everyone would have received two feedbacks, but on the other hand, this would also increase the work of the participating organisations.