Benefits > Studies

1998 Survey Background Information and Considerations

MetroGIS Participant Satisfaction Survey - 1996-1997
Background Information and Considerations

In January 2,1998 the Policy Advisory Team sent out a Participant Satisfaction Survey to individuals who have participated in the MetroGIS effort since September of 1996. The goal was an attempt to continually improve efforts to improve the organization and process that we call MetroGIS.

In collating the results there surfaced some concerns with the structure of the survey that have made interpreting and presenting the results somewhat problematic. Some of those problems significant enough, that they need to be discussed prior to looking at the actual survey results.

There appeared to be some confusion with the directions to some questions, specifically to questions 6-13. There were ratings given to committees and groups where the respondent was not a member of the committee or group. This was not the direction given. Where the discrepancy was found, an adjustment was made to the reported results.

• In converting the responses to Questions 1-4,6,7,9-11,16,17,19a, 19b2&3, to a point scale it is important to remember that some questions converted a 5 point scale while some converted on a 3 point scale. This is because some of the questions gave 5 choices to respond (Excellent, Good, Average, Fair, Poor) and some gave 3 (Too Much, About Right, Not Enough). The scale used is noted with each question.
• There was a desire to try and identify results by committee or group. This could be accomplished with some of the questions but was a cumbersome task with others. In questions 1-4, for example, the results were not broken down by committee or workgroup. The results are presented with an overall rating representing the combined responses from all surveys, a rating of surveys from those who participate in core organization committees and teams and a rating of those who participated in workgroups only. There is a clear indication of the response group identified with the results for each question.
• It was very apparent by how questions 19a,b & c regarding the web site were answered that people either did not read the directions or did not understand what they were supposed to do. Since these are not questions critical to the organization and its continued development the results have been combined into one figure for each question. The comments are included in the comments section of the report.
• In most cases, it was almost impossible to identify if the written comments pertained to a specific committee or workgroup. The results are presented by question with an indication at the end of each comment as to how the survey respondent identified their participation in MetroGIS. A key has been included at the beginning of the comments section.
• Comments that identified an individual have been collated and forwarded to the Policy Advisory Team for further action if deemed necessary.
• Finally, it is important to remember that neither the survey nor the results were developed or collated by individuals with particular training or expertise in this area. This was not intended to be a scientifically accurate tool but rather a barometer for doing some evaluation and fine-tuning of what has been a monumental effort thus far.
• Not all questions were answered on each survey. Where the no responses were significant it is noted in the report for the appropriate questions.

For the purposes of presenting the results, answers were converted to either a 5-point scale or a 3-point scale and then simple averaging was used to arrive at a number representative of all responses. The scales are defined as follows: