Grants talk:APG/Feedback and continuous improvement of the FDC process/Process Survey

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

FDC Input survey feedback[edit]

Question 3
  • I suggest changing wording to "Given the scope of your role, do you think this was ___ for this process? That could get respondents thinking more concretely. This is also a great opportunity to follow up with a why? question, so you might consider adding one in. Jtmorgan (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question 6
  • I also think some targeted 'why' questions would elicit valuable feedback here. If you're using Qualtrics or some other more robust survey platform to deploy this, you could add skip logic: If the respondent rates their experience a 1 or a 2, ask them "Was there anything in particular you disliked about the FDC process?". Similarly, if they rate it a 3 or 4 "Was there anything in particular you liked?" Jtmorgan (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! great feedback. I updated all but the "why" after Q3...based on past surveys, I'm not sure we'd get any actionable suggestions from an open-ended question here. If people have particular suggestions for improvements, some of the other open ended questions throughout this survey (and in more detail in the Cost-benefit survey, which the actual people most knowledgable about the time to complete the process will be participating) will hopefully provide space to capture them. Jwild (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Again, two best and two worst aspects would nail people's ideas better, I think. Tony (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

quant vs. qual[edit]

While I think a quantitative survey is a great idea, I'd definitely add one or two open-ended questions with ideas and suggestions for changes of the FDC process. The last "open text box" sort of allows it, but is very general, I was thinking more like (a) what can be done to improve the FDC process (b) which parts of the process were most confusing/difficult and why, etc. Pundit (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good idea; thanks! Jwild (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hours question[edit]

Q,How many hours did you personally spend on work related to the most recent round of funding allocations, between <insert dates>: (numerical text box) It is better to make the above less precise, like on the average <4hrs between 4 and 8 hours per week or more than 8 hours.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Made ranges. I think you're right: it will be easier to answer! Jwild (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
based on round 1 surveys, we're going to change this one back to be an open-ended question for surveys going forward. Jwild (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes for Round 2 2012-13[edit]

Made a few changes for the most recent round of funding, Round 2 2012-13. Some of these include spaces for qualitative feedback for why people gave high scores or were satisfied with the process: this way, we can also be aware of the things about the process that we don't want to lose, as well as those things we may want to improve. Jwild (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jessie, just a point of readability: could you please insert a comma after "Round 2"? This would be standard practice where there's a string of numerals: Round 2, 2012–13. Tony (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2014 Changes[edit]

Note that this survey text is now out of date, though approximately the same concepts are covered. Recorded here for documentation purposes :) Jwild (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jessie—is it the section overlead labeled "Survey text"? Has it gone out yet? Tony (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]