How to: Develop & Manage a Virtual Training ‘Bootcamp’
Sharing some of the HEA team’s lessons learned from putting together a 5-day training Bootcamp at distance, for our HEA Phase II: Stage 1 cohort.
Following our official launch of HEA Phase II in December 2020, we received more than 150 applications for the HEA programme, spread across our 5 focus countries of Chad, Ethiopia, Jordan, Lebanon and Uganda. As HEA Phase II takes a stage-gated approach to selecting our grantees, our next step was to select 10 teams to participate in Stage 1 — our Scaling Bootcamp.
It quickly became clear that we had an impressively strong group of applicants and so, to account for the strength of applications, the decision was taken by our Technical Team to slightly increase our Bootcamp capacity — inviting 13 finalist teams from across our five focus countries to participate. Selected teams were:
Uganda:
Ethiopia:
Chad:
Jordan:
Lebanon:
Ordinarily, we would host our Scaling Bootcamp in person, bringing together all participants in a single location for a one week deep dive into facilitated workshops and discussions. However, COVID-19 restrictions meant that this approach was no longer viable and we needed to make the transition to a virtual, online format.
Bringing a training Bootcamp for 13 different organisations online was a fresh challenge for our team, demanding a new approach to planning, facilitation and overall management. Below are some of our key lessons learned and checklist items we spent time thinking through, which might be helpful for others operating in this space:
1.Choosing a platform to host the bootcamp: Finding the right platform, which can support the participation of multiple attendees, has features that facilitate interaction (such as breakout rooms, user-friendly chat functions & polls), is vital. After looking at different available options, we decided to go with Zoom (using a paid account). We made the decision based on the fact it is a platform that is widely used and familiar to the majority of participants — an important factor to consider when bringing together teams across diverse geographic locations and with different levels of connectivity— whilst offering us the most flexibility in terms of managing participants and building in interactivity.
2. Using the right tools for the right activities: Moving workshops online means that many of the usual ‘in-person’ tools used to facilitate activities are not available or need to be adapted. Fortunately there are numerous online tools that have emerged in the last years, which are designed for online workshops or facilitation of group work at-distance. That said, it is important to consider which tools are best suited for the activities that you are undertaking, as well as the demographics of your group (do they have issues with connectivity? How comfortable are they with different online tools? Etc). The number of different tools you are introducing is also something to keep an eye on, as it can take time for participants to learn how to use them if it is their first time. In order to maximise the efficient use of time, keeping the number of tools that participants need to get to grips with to a minimum can be a smart move. We decided to use Miro.com as our online whiteboard platform, to lead breakout sessions and group activities, and Mentimeter.com for Q&As, icebreakers and feedback. By limiting the number of tools used, our cohort were able to end the Bootcamp with a good level of proficiency in using the tools we had selected — something that was mentioned as an unforeseen bonus in their feedback. Though teams were quick to pick up the tools, a lesson learned on our side was that in future it might be a good idea to share chosen tools with teams prior to the Bootcamp, to give them a chance to familiarise themselves/test them ahead of time.
3.Ensuring interactivity/avoiding Zoom fatigue: With all the online tools that are available you may imagine that moving a workshop online is not that much different from having people in the same room. In reality, the experience is very different. Conversation and interactivity is far less organic, with screens and online tools often putting distance between participants and making conversation more stilted. ‘Zoom fatigue’ from staring at screens and listening for hours on end is also a real issue, demanding much more thought around breaks, opportunities for discussion and light relief. As a result, significant work needs to go into planning and facilitating components that encourage interactivity and exchange between participants. We found that having facilitators on hand to guide and encourage discussion in different breakout rooms was really important, especially in the early days of the Bootcamp. We also spent a significant amount of time planning out and running through each of the sessions prior to the Bootcamp, to ensure that interactive elements appeared in each session (and worked well online!) and breaks were also factored in. Creative icebreakers were also an important component to get the participants comfortable with speaking and sharing on Zoom.
4.Clear communication: We found that very clear instructions around breakout activities were needed so that participants felt comfortable to engage. Verbal descriptions weren’t always enough, especially when some participants had glitchy internet connection. We found routinely embedding written instructions in our Miro Boards was an effective way of ensuring clarity. Clear communication through multiple channels (email, verbal briefings and written instructions) around the day’s activities and other Bootcamp logistics was also needed both in the lead up to sessions as well as after. Integrating 15 minute orientation and wrap up sessions at the beginning and end of each day of the Bootcamp was particularly effective in ensuring we delivered and gathered key information or feedback in a clear and systematic way.
5. A space for sharing resources: In addition to selecting a platform to host the daily Bootcamp sessions, we realised that it was important to have an additional space to collate and share some of the resources being discussed in our sessions (especially since hard copy hand outs weren’t possible). We also recognised a need for a space for participants to ask side bar questions and for us to be able to share recordings of sessions and logistical information such as Zoom links. A benefit of having this space was also that it allowed more members of respective teams to engage in what was coming out of the Bootcamp training than would be possible in an in-person environment. After considering our options, we chose Google Classroom as our Bootcamp Hub — as it is a free and user friendly platform. Once up and running we found the space worked well, however, there were unforeseen issues with sign up that meant we had to do quite a bit of trouble shooting with our participants in the beginning. We had hoped that the Classroom would also act as a space for our cohort to chat online and exchange ideas, however we found that this never really got going, in spite of verbal and written prompts to use the space. This was perhaps due to constraints on participants’ time outside the Bootcamp hours. On reflection, this form of sideline interactivity needs a lot of facilitation when it is not in-person and may need to be a built in requirement to encourage initial engagement, rather than being an optional activity.
6. Workshop management: One key piece of advice on online workshop management is — do not underestimate the tech logistics. Whilst the tools we select are designed to make things easier, they bring with them an additional layer of management and logistics that if neglected can seriously impact the quality and smooth running of the workshop. Having a dedicated person working full time on Zoom logistics — admitting participants, muting those not speaking, organising and sending partipants to breakout rooms, managing screen sharing, recording sessions, monitoring the chat etc — was crucial for our Bootcamp. Swapping between platforms, such as Miro and Menti, whilst presenting, as well as ensuring all participants had the correct links for access to the tools used, also required careful pre-planning. We found preparing a run sheet for each individual session, which included all the tech logistics, breakout room lists, slides and detailed descriptions of activities was key to ensuring that the Bootcamp management team and external presenters had all the information that was needed and knew exactly what they needed to do behind the scenes, and when.
When working with participants who are in multiple locations and across a range of timezones, deciding on the timings of the Bootcamp also demanded some careful thinking through. Whilst it was unavoidable for some participants to have to dial in in the early hours, we tried to mitigate the impact by making some days’ sessions later and spreading the Bootcamp across two weeks, rather than the originally planned one week. We also limited our days to no more than 5 hours of sessions, with regular breaks. We found breaking up the Bootcamp in this way to be particularly effective, as it gave the participants the time and space to digest the content, as well as our team the opportunity to review and adapt our approaches between sessions where needed, following feedback from participants.
7. Cohort building: Developing a community of practice to share ideas, evidence and lesson learned is a key component of the HEA programme. Bringing together a cohesive cohort and enabling them to learn from each other and have meaningful exchanges was therefore an extremely important part of how we wanted to design our Bootcamp. Trying to facilitate this kind of interaction online is different to in-person, for many of the reasons already outlined above. With less space for informal, sidebar discussions that might happen during an in-person Bootcamp, we knew that building in more structured opportunities for peer-to-peer learning was key. We managed this through dedicated sessions where teams presented their innovations to the wider cohort and had clearly defined space and time to provide feedback and ask questions (guided by facilitators and carefully designed Miro Boards). We also experimented with mixing up breakout groups, so that different teams had the opportunity to work together on the Bootcamp exercises (for example on stakeholder mapping and value networks), identify synergies, discuss and brainstorm shared issues and potential solutions. We found this approach to be really successful, with teams highlighting the new connections they formed with other teams as particularly valuable and something they plan to build on beyond the Bootcamp.
8. Feedback mechanisms: Last but not least, providing opportunities for feedback is really important when operating online. Not being able to see and interact with everyone as individuals, as you would during an in-person workshop, means that ad hoc feedback is not possible. It is also more difficult to take the temperature of the room, especially during activities where participants are spread across different break outs. Building in regular feedback loops for our participants was therefore vital. We found Mentimeter.com to be a fantastic tool for consistently capturing their views and sense checking the day’s activities.
We really enjoyed bringing our Bootcamp online and overall were pleased with the outcome and the great feedback we received from our cohort. It was clear to us as a team that there are benefits to moving online — such as the ability to involve more participants (we had over 40 in some sessions) and a potentially greater range of expert contributors, as well as more easily documenting the activities that were undertaken during the sessions and allowing participants the opportunity to continue working on them beyond the Bootcamp. However, we also recognised that there is a whole layer of additional ‘behind the scenes’ work needed to ensure the smooth running and quality of the experience, with some benefits of in-person interaction proving challenging to replicate.
