Subject: Research Study

From: Erik Hjelmas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 10:41:59 -0500 (EST)

Greetings,
	I am working on a follow-up study to the "Improving the 
Standardization Process" study, conducted by Michael Spring in 1994 
(see http://www.lis.pitt.edu/~spring/papers/improve.ps). This study 
investigated how characteristics of technical and working committee 
chairs contributed to the success of the standardization effort (it 
looked at IETF, X3 and IEEE chairs). The purpose of my study is to 
determine how committee members feel the committee composition and 
characteristics of committee members contribute to the standardization 
effort. I am delimiting my study to IETF committees (working groups).
        Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you choose to
return this questionnaire, please answer the questions as they appear and
do not alter the question statements or choices. A section for additional
comments is at the end of the survey. A copy of the results of the study
may be obtained by sending an e-mail request to [email-masked].
	All individual responses to this survey will be kept confidential 
and will be used only for compiling and analyzing summary statistics. No 
reference to individual responses will be made. Upon receipt of the 
returned questionnaire, your name will be stripped from the mail note and 
discarded. Should you feel more comfortable printing and p-mailing the 
survey, feel free. Mail it to Erik Hjelmas c/o Michael B. Spring, 
Room 705 LIS, Department of Information Science, University of 
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, no later than December 22, 1995.
Your participation is greatly appreciated.

QUESTIONNAIRE

Instructions:

This questionnaire is designed, for your convenience, in a way that allows 
you to write your answer at the beginning of each line beginning with "<>" 
(feel free to use several lines to answer the question, if you wish). If 
your text editor allows searching, you may want to use that feature to 
move between answers, feel free to write your answer in front of or at 
the end of the "<>". When answering selection/choice questions, please 
indicate your answer with an "x" or "X", if not otherwise specified.

1A. 
What is your title/position within your organization?	
<>

1B.
How would you classify your job?
<> - management
<> - research & development
<> - production/engineering
<> - marketing
<> - other, please specify:
<>

1C.
Indicate the number of years you have spent
<> - on post high school education
<> - in current job
<> - in your current field

2. 
Please indicate the working group (WG) you are representing on this 
questionnaire:
<>
Note:
If you are a member of multiple working groups, try as best as you can
to answer the questions for only one particular group (if you wish,
you are welcome to answer questionnaires for each WG, but this is not 
expected).

3A.
How many meetings has your WG conducted since you joined the WG?
<>

3B.
How many meetings have you attended?
<>

3C.
What percentage of your total work effort is devoted specifically to work 
on the standard?
<>

3D.
What percentage of your total work effort is spent on work generally 
related to the standard (including the percentage in 3C)?
<>

4. 
With regards to the standard being developed in your WG, how would you 
classify your employer:
<> - producer (develops products compliant with the standard)
<> - consumer (potential user of products compliant with the standard)
<> - observer (possibly affected by the standard being developed,
               e.g. government agency, other standards organization)
<> - not relevant, representing myself

5A. 
X the most IDEALLY characteristic of a WG member:
<> - ability to initiate proposals to get things moving
<> - able to focus on objectives
<> - ability to listen attentively and monitor activities
<> - attention to technical detail
<> - ability to forge consensus
<> - ability to actively head-off bad ideas
<> - other, please specify:
<>

5B.
X the most common characteristic of your actual WG members:
<> - ability to initiate proposals to get things moving
<> - able to focus on objectives
<> - ability to listen attentively and monitor activities
<> - attention to technical detail
<> - ability to forge consensus
<> - ability to actively head-off bad ideas
<> - other, please specify:
<>

5C.
X the characteristic most lacking in WG members:
<> - ability to initiate proposals to get things moving
<> - able to focus on objectives
<> - ability to listen attentively and monitor activities
<> - attention to technical detail
<> - ability to forge consensus
<> - ability to actively head-off bad ideas
<> - other, please specify:
<>

5D.
X the most counterproductive characteristic of WG members:
<> - lack of attention to technical detail
<> - lack of focus
<> - introducing irrelevant topics
<> - unwillingness to compromise
<> - asking stupid questions
<> - coming unprepared
<> - other, please specify:
<>

If you identified your organization as a producer, please answer all 
parts of question 6, then go to question 8. If you identified your 
organization as a consumer, go to question 7, otherwise go to question 8.

6A.
On a scale from 1 to 10 (10=most important), how important is it to have 
consumers as a part of the WG?
<>

6B.
What percentage of WG members do you think should be 
producers/consumers/observers?
<> - producers
<> - consumers
<> - observers

6C.
When in the process of developing and approving a standard might 
consumers be of the greatest help?
<> - early conceptualization
<> - initially/early discussions
<> - during the writing
<> - testing period
<> - during the voting

7A.
On a scale from 1 to 10 (10=best receptivity), how would you rate the 
receptivity of producers to your ideas and suggestions?
<>

7B.
On a scale from 1 to 10 (10=most useful), how useful to you are the 
following:
<> - meetings
<> - meeting minutes
<> - standards drafts
<> - comments on ballots

8.
Below are 5 statements. Please identify on a five point scale your 
opinion (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=no opinion, 4=agree, 
5=strongly agree).

The work conducted on the WG would be more efficient if:  

<> - only producers were stronger represented in the WG
<> - fewer observers were present at each meeting
<> - more WG members attended each meeting
<> - consumers represented a larger part of the WG
<> - the WG members had more technical expertise

9.
Please provide any other comments you wish to make about the composition 
of working groups or this survey:
<>