# An Organizational and Governance Model to Support Mass Collaborative Learning Initiatives
## 4 Demonstration
### Governance Process
#### 4.1.4 Evaluating the Adequacy of Selected Factors, Features, and Elements (Step 4)  
To evaluate the \"adequacy\" of OGM-MCL for usage in EDENCP, a number of positive factors and specific features (mentioned in Section 2.1) that have potential applicability are picked out. To evaluate and benchmark the adequacy and importance of the nominated factors, features, and elements (items), they are addressed in 100 questions, forming the adequacy questionnaire (see Appendix A). Each question in the questionnaire represents a potential item that might be used on the platform. The questions--based on the specifications and characteristics that they present--are classified under nine considered dimensions of collaboration namely, organizational, environmental, admission, behavioral, social, structural, functional, technological, and economical. This classification facilitates the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of the results of the evaluation. The adequacy and importance of the selected items (to be considered for EDENCP) are asked and assessed by a checklist in the questionnaire. There are six possible answers in the checklist for each question, namely, strongly disagree (SDA), disagree (DA), agree (A), strongly agree (SA), I don't know, and I'm not sure (now). The evaluators (partners, constituting a kind of \"focus group\" in terms of the Design Science Method) not only can choose one of these possible answers, but they can also insert comments and feedback (if needed) about each addressed item in each question. It is noteworthy to mention that this questionnaire provides a form of global evaluation of the considered dimensions and their respective items. The questionnaire was sent to each partner of the ED-EN HUB consortium, and they were asked to respond to the questions collaboratively (with their internal involved members who are experienced in this field of study and work). Therefore, the questions in each questionnaire were answered via the collaboration and confluence of different minds rather than a single partner. This strategy not only helped reduce the number of questionnaires that were sent out, answered, and evaluated but also increased the accuracy and value of the given answers. The main results of this step of evaluation (average of the popularity of adapted items for implementation on EDENCP) achieved from analyzing the five received questionnaires are summarized in Table 1. In the method for analyzing the obtained data from respondents and calculating the statistical answers given to the questions (addressed in the questionnaire), a decision was made to give weight to each answer in the checklist. The attributed weights are as follows: (SDA = 1), (DA = 2), (A = 3), (SA = 4), (I don't know = 0), and (I'm not sure = 0). In the calculation, each answer (for a single question) was first multiplied with the attributed weight and then they were summed up and lastly divided by the total number of respondents. The received responses were analyzed manually. To obtain an improved perspective of the results of this step of evaluation, they are also displayed as a radar chart in Figure 5.  
Taking into account the given responses to the questions of the adequacy questionnaire (illustrated in Table 1 and Figure 5) and from the performed analysis, the following can be concluded:  
* The nine considered dimensions are generally accepted by all evaluators (partners) because the average popularity given to all dimensions is above 50% (an indicator of acceptance). * Among the considered dimensions, the organizational dimension and its respective items received the highest average of popularity (83.57%), whereas the economical dimension received the lowest average of popularity (58.50%) from the respondents' point of view.