Here are the comments we received from write-shop participants. The number next to the comment indicates the number of times we received this comment (or something similar). If there is no number, it means we only received the comment once.
What Worked Well:

Creation of linkages between projects and themes
Good facilitation
Professionally run workshop, well organized
An environment which fostered open knowledge exchange
Workshop process managed to sustain productive and enthusiastic participant engagement
Collegial and non competitive atmosphere
Exploring wider collaboration between projects and beyond
Discussing the different points in the proposal
Concrete process in writing proposals
Meeting and exchanging ideas with project partners
Better understanding of the R4D process
Learning about the Basins

Shared understanding of basin/topic problems and issues

Explanation of outputs and outcomes as well as lessons and practice

Good focused conversations

Developed a timetable project framework which was sensible, coherent, and consistent across projects

Improved understanding of outcomes, outputs, impact pathways, and more

Food and venue

Resource people

Clear guidelines on the flip chart

Interactions with program management team

Write-shop materials

Bus stops

What Needs to be Improved:

5 days should have been 2-3 days/too long
More time working on proposals
Some presentation material (especially charts) not clear
Some presentations could have been better tailored to the audience

More emphasis on institutional analysis as the first step to identifying target groups, rather than jumping to “short cuts”

There should have been some time at the end to discuss the issues put up on the “Parking Lot”

Room/hall size should be decided based on the number of participants

Speaking too fast

More time for strategies

Provide more information on our baseline or indicators

More information about the research process, philosophy, design architecture in advance

More coordination for group work, especially when it came to basin and theme

More notice for travel

Involvement of local actors

Meeting room with high speed internet

What Did You Learn:

Indicators and baselines were an eye opener
Framework for how to make an impact pathway
More about the people working in our Basin
Communications strategy presentation was excellent – lots of things to learn
About other projects
Outcomes <~> Outputs
The way the activities were organized (bus stops, roundtable discussions, plenaries, discussions by project/basin/topic, etc.)
R4D process and approach
Potential points for collaboration
About the work pattern and organization

Gender discussions were awesome and informative

How to write the proposal

About other peoples’ diverse range of ideas and aspirations

The goals of WLE Greater Mekong & R4D objectives of other proposed project

Cross basin learning

Partner perspectives

The process of linking across the themes and basins

About re-routing the design process, as well as communications and linking outputs

How complicated and difficult managing basin collaboration and management can be

What is Still Missing/Any Concerns:

Guide on finances in the workbook
The write-shop was too long (maybe 3 days is better)
Perhaps the sessions on research questions and methodologies could have been skipped since it was a major component of the EOIs

Matching ambitious/audacious WLE project aspirations and management to modest budgets

The resources that WLE Greater Mekong will provide for project implementation

Not enough time to rest/the setting for breaks

Identification of indicators of impact

Would have been good to have community/local participants or people in water management to share their experiences/concerns

Espresso machine, organic local food, not plastic water bottles, and a family hotel

Maybe more time for outcomes, outputs, and indicators

Lots of excel sheets to fill…