Grants talk:APG/Feedback and continuous improvement of the FDC process/Cost–benefit survey

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

FDC cost–benefit survey feedback[edit]

Question 3
  • I would re-word this so that you don't get people answering speculatively. It sounds like you're only interested in getting estimates from PCs who have received funding from other sources. But that's not made totally clear until option #4 in the drop-down. If some people are answering based on experience, and others are answering based on what they imagine the difference might be, it makes your results harder to interpret. So: "If you have sought similar levels of funding from other sources (e.g., the Wikimedia Grants Program process, external funding requests, etc.), How did the total investment of staff time and dollars you spend on requesting funds through the FDC compare to the cost of raising the same amount of funds from other sources?" You could also use skip logic here, and only show this question to people who indicated in a previous question that they had received funding from other sources. But that depends on the survey tool you're using. Jtmorgan (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
incorporated - want to keep this to one question though. Jwild (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, sounds like those who haven't applied for a similar amount of funding from elsewhere will glaze over and ignore this question. What exactly do you want to learn? As for all questions, perhaps you could work backwards from the way people might respond (extreme responses are good as a thought-experiment). Tony (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question 4
  • You might consider asking for targeted feedback if someone indicates very low agreement with one or more of the listed statements. For instance, if they strongly disagree with the statement about greater transparency, that's a great opportunity to find out why they have such strongly negative feelings, and potentially identify things that might be difficult for other users as well. Whereas if they rate it a 4, it might not be as important to follow up. I feel like I'm recommending skip logic all over the place here... but that's because it's useful! :) Jtmorgan (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not quite sure what type of information they would give in the qualitative feedback with these questions. There is definitely a chance something valuable would come out, so it may be worth asking these open-ended questions during this first round where there are only 12 (?) applicants, but I'm not sure how I would respond to an open ended question if I had answered a 1 for the FDC giving transparency: to me, I would think it just didn't! Ideally, if there was something of particular concern that is actionable, it will appear in Q5. Jwild (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You might also re-phrase the long sentence fragments into full sentences (e.g. The FDC process gave me more clarity about our annual goals and plan). They're easier to read and process, that way. Jtmorgan (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
incorporated. Jwild (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally: You might consider asking a stock question: What were the two worst and two best aspects of the ... process? Remember that you'll need to code the written-out responses so everyone can interpret the overall responses. Tony (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Round 2 2012-13 updates[edit]

Added question 1a Jwild (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]