Quick suggestion poll (3 questions) that asks for one suggestion, a priority rating (Very important, Important, Not very important), and a category (Skilled and competent service; Caring and respectful staff; Location, hours and languages; Facilities and equipment; Wait times; Other).
- Suggestion poll
How can we improve? Please make one suggestion. (open-ended)
How important is this suggestion? (Very important, Important, Not very important)
What is this suggestion about? (Skilled and competent service, Caring and respectful staff, Location, hours and languages, Facilities and equipment, Wait times, Other)
Method of data collection
This poll uses sense-making techniques to engage participants in making thoughtful suggestions and to reduce the costs of qualitative analysis. Respondents are asked to narrow down their feedback to one suggestion, rated by priority and categorized by common elements of service quality. If the survey includes demographic measures and program information (e.g., branch, type of program), the reports can quickly drill down to actionable information quickly and inexpensively.
The instrument is intended to engage respondents as participants in service improvement. It is not designed for open qualitative research, and expects respondents to provide thoughtful succinct feedback that can be easily understood and aggregated. The categories and priority ranking are explicitly designed to probe for recommendations around a wide range of management topics, including accessibility.
Because of the cognitive demands of the 3-stage measure (selecting the most important suggestion, prioritizing it and categorizing it), you can use this instrument as a an interview protocol. Questions can be translated and explained by the interviewer.
If it is used as an interview protocol, we suggest you take the same approach as the Impact and Suggestions Interview:
The instrument invites clients and participants to recommend changes to the program based on their perspective as experts in their own experiences. It is an invitation to contribute as a partner, not a way to collect unstructured ideas and reactions. The interviewer should attempt to capture suggestions using wording that can be reported to staff without revealing identity, and clearly enough that action can be taken. In other words, interviewers should strip responses of identifiable information and summarize suggestions in clear actionable statements.
We suggest that each staff person carry out one interview per month, with results discussed at monthly staff meetings. Alternatively you could ask volunteers to interview a small sample every couple of months. Interviewers can talk to their own clients or intentionally talk only to clients who they do not work with. Whatever your sampling method, describe it in the SIS SharePoint ‘Active Surveys’ list to provide context for the reports.
The instrument assumes that you are not using a random sample. Instead, think of it as extending an invitation to act as an advisor to the program, and select people who represent key groups and also are willing to reveal their opinions. Methodologically it draws from usability engineering methods in which a sample size of one to three can be meaningful. One of the main benefits is that staff gain insight into their own programs. In that way it is an organizational change intervention in itself.