View
215
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
CRP Evaluation Analysis
Sunflower ProjectChris Lewis, Stacey Calhoon and Annette Witt
January 13, 2009
2
About Survey
• Sent to all CRP participants on December 19– Cutoff Date – January 8, 2009 (3 weeks to respond)– One survey per person
• Ex: 1 CRP attended = 1 Survey, 10 CRPs attended = 1 Survey
– 130 – CRP Participants Surveyed• Questions About:
– Name, Title and Agency– CRPs attended– Reactions to CRPs– Ways to be effectively engaged by Sunflower Project– General Comments about the CRPs
3
Purpose of Survey
• Obtain feedback to prepare for future agency meetings and workshops
• Why?– Feedback
• Will identify what was good about CRP interactions and what needs improvements
– Project Growth• Improved Ideas, Processes
• Maintain and Build agency relationships
4
Response Statistics
• Sent to:– 130 Participants
– Email sent to primary contact for each agency advising them of the survey
• Responses:– 68 Total Responses through January 8, 2009
• 52% Response Rate
6
Reactions to CRPs
• The CRPs were generally presented in an appropriate format:– 4.07 out of 5 (81.4%)
– Comments:• Info/Requirements before meeting.
• Bigger Conference Rooms
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
7
Reactions to CRPs
• Clearly described purposes of the CRP session:– 4.25 out of 5 (85.0%)
• Adequate time was devoted to cover CRP subject matters:– 3.90 out of 5 (78.0%)
• Interact about session content with Sunflower Project Team Members at an appropriate level of detail:– 4.08 out of 5 (81.6%)
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
8
Reactions to CRPs
• Interact with Sunflower Project Team Members about session content for an appropriate amount of time:– 4.05 out of 5 (81.0%)
• Interact with other participants about session content at an appropriate level of detail:– 3.92 out of 5 (78.4%)
• Interact with other participants about the session content for an appropriate amount of time:– 3.88 out of 5 (77.6%)
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
9
Reactions to CRPs
• Representatives from other agencies actively participated in the CRP process:– 4.02 out of 5 (80.4%)
• My agency's business requirements were adequately captured during the CRPs:– 3.44 out of 5 (68.8%)
• The CRP format was an effective way for me to participate in the Sunflower Project:– 3.97 out of 5 (79.4%)
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
10
Feedback
• Positive– Beneficial and Very Informative
– Very high knowledge level
– Willingness to be as involved as needed
11
Feedback
• Negative– Allow more than one person to attend meetings– Not feasible to participate in multiple CRP tracks
• See whole picture• See more interaction between modules
– Half Day sessions• Smaller agencies need/want to attend all meetings, but cannot
afford to be out of office all day, everyday– Timing
• Agencies would like to receive specific CRP information before the sessions to adequately assess– To have the right people at the right sessions
• If the presentation is going to be cut short (by 1-2 hours) possibly doing multiple sessions in one time slot.– For Agency Reps not working downtown
12
Summary
• Agencies want more– More one on one time with Project staff
– More knowledge of PeopleSoft functionality
– More knowledge of PeopleSoft integration
– More communication on decisions like SHaRP, Time and Labor, COA, Program Codes
– How the FMS will work for their agencies
13
Summary
• Finance Team take-a-ways– Provide future meeting information in advance if
possible
– Be respectful of agency staff time
– Provide follow up information
– More sessions
– More participants
– Smaller groups
Recommended