LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for NDSA-STANDARDS Archives


NDSA-STANDARDS Archives

NDSA-STANDARDS Archives


NDSA-STANDARDS@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NDSA-STANDARDS Home

NDSA-STANDARDS Home

NDSA-STANDARDS  May 2012, Week 4

NDSA-STANDARDS May 2012, Week 4

Subject:

Re: please review revised version of the staffing survey

From:

Amy Kirchhoff <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

The NDSA Standards working group list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 22 May 2012 12:09:47 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (166 lines)

Hi Andrea ~

I like your proposal for Q10.

For Q16, I would just propose we change the text of the question to be "and/or" to match the selector choice. :-)

~ Amy

-----Original Message-----
From: The NDSA Standards working group list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Goethals, Andrea
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 11:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NDSA-STANDARDS] please review revised version of the staffing survey

Hi Amy,

Yes, Q10 is complex. You are right that the 2nd to last column is intended to mean we're not currently doing it but would like to. We could make the column heading say explicitly that. 

We can also split this up into multiple questions as I started to with adding #9. Based on feedback from Mary I think that #9 should be reworded to "Which of these activities are considered part of the digital preservation function at your organization, whether or not you are currently doing/outsourcing this activity?" (Because there was ambiguity as to you if they should only select things they are currently doing/outsourcing). Is the proposed rewording clear enough?

We're currently asking many things in #10:
- whether or not they are currently doing them
- if they are currently doing them whether its in-house, outsourced (or both because you can select more than one)
- in the case that they are not doing it, if they would like to add it to their program (actually this may be redundant information. With the proposed rewording of #9 we will know that any activities listed in #10 that they didn't say they are currently doing are activities they would like add)
- whether they would like to outsource activities

Here's one option for #10. We could simplify it to just have the first 2 columns (currently done in-house, currently outsourced). Then we could have a follow-up question that lists the same activities as #10 and asks which they would like to outsource (we would know that any they don't select they would want to do in-house).

--------
Q16 - Currently they can select more than one so checking both asks as an and. We could change it to be more explicit with radio buttons and have an option that includes both of the first 2 options. Does that work better?

Andrea






> -----Original Message-----
> From: The NDSA Standards working group list [mailto:NDSA- 
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy Kirchhoff
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 11:12 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NDSA-STANDARDS] please review revised version of the 
> staffing survey
> 
> Hi all ~
> 
> On Q10, I'm not quite sure what we mean by the 2nd to last column.
> 
> Are we saying this is not currently done, but we would like to do it?
> And then we could click Would like to outsource, as well?
> 
> So, one could combo:
> 
> * Currently done in-house and would like to outsource.
> * Would like to add to our digital preservation program and would like 
> to outsource.
> 
> But the other combos really only mean you are currently doing two 
> things?
> 
> 
> I guess, I'm stumbling because it seems that selecting two or more 
> things can mean different things:
> 
> 1) it can mean you are doing two things.
> 2) it can mean you aren't doing anything and you want to do something.
> 
> But, you can't say you are currently outsourcing, but want to do it in 
> house
> 
> I wonder if this is better as two questions?
> 
> Or, move the Would like to add to our digital preservation program 
> first, and add in a new column for "Would like to do in-house"?
> 
> On Q16: should we make it "and/or", rather than just or?
> 
> The survey looks great!
> 
> ~ Amy
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The NDSA Standards working group list [mailto:NDSA- 
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Goethals, Andrea
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 2:13 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [NDSA-STANDARDS] please review revised version of the 
> staffing survey
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I made some revisions to the dp staffing survey based on:
> - feedback from our last WG call (defines FTE, gives example of other 
> department, ability to indicate that an area isn't considered part of 
> the dp function)
> -  feedback from Mary Vardigan via email (primarily about the privacy 
> text, but also some new options for the type of organization, and the 
> wording of the question about the amount of files being preserved)
> - best practice videos/manuals on building surveys (by Qualtrics and
> SurveyMonkey) Based on these I simplified how the number ranges were 
> presented for the question on amount of content, simplified some 
> question text, and added some more N/A and Other options.
> - capability of Qualtrics - using a feature called "carry forward 
> choices", they're now asked which areas are considered part of the dp 
> function at their org, and in a follow up question they are asked the 
> status of any they had selected in the previous question.
> 
> You can try out a test version of the survey with this link:  Try the 
> test version of the 
> survey.<https://harvard.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_7PdihNMVB9FnT6I>
> Currently 2 of the questions are required (name of organization, type 
> of organization) so you won't be able to advance to page 2 if you 
> leave these blank.
> 
> Any and all feedback is welcome.
> 
> For the "real" survey, Jimi and I were thinking that a month should be 
> sufficient time to keep the survey open once we're ready to publish it.
> That should give us enough time to look at the number of responses 
> coming in and send out reminders if needed. Any objections to the 
> month length?
> 
> Thanks,
> Andrea
> 
> Andrea Goethals
> Digital Preservation and Repository Services Manager Harvard Library 
> [log in to unmask]
> (617) 495-3724
> 
> 
> ############################
> 
> To unsubscribe from the NDSA-STANDARDS list:
> write to: mailto:NDSA-STANDARDS-SIGNOFF- 
> [log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?SUBED1=NDSA
> -
> STANDARDS&A=1
> 
> ############################
> 
> To unsubscribe from the NDSA-STANDARDS list:
> write to: mailto:NDSA-STANDARDS-SIGNOFF- 
> [log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?SUBED1=NDSA
> -
> STANDARDS&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the NDSA-STANDARDS list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?SUBED1=NDSA-STANDARDS&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the NDSA-STANDARDS list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?SUBED1=NDSA-STANDARDS&A=1

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2019
May 2019
March 2019
October 2018
May 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
March 2014, Week 1
March 2014
February 2014, Week 4
February 2014, Week 3
February 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 1
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 1
December 2013, Week 3
December 2013, Week 2
December 2013, Week 1
November 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 3
September 2013, Week 3
September 2013, Week 2
August 2013, Week 5
August 2013, Week 2
August 2013, Week 1
July 2013, Week 3
July 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 1
June 2013, Week 4
June 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 4
May 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 4
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 4
March 2013, Week 3
March 2013, Week 2
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 2
January 2013, Week 5
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 3
January 2013, Week 2
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 5
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
October 2012, Week 5
October 2012, Week 4
October 2012, Week 1
September 2012, Week 4
September 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 2
September 2012, Week 1
August 2012, Week 5
August 2012, Week 3
August 2012, Week 2
August 2012, Week 1
July 2012, Week 5
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 5
May 2012, Week 4
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 1
April 2012, Week 4
April 2012, Week 3
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 5
March 2012, Week 3
March 2012, Week 2
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 4
February 2012, Week 3
February 2012, Week 1
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
January 2012, Week 1
December 2011, Week 5
December 2011, Week 4
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 5
November 2011, Week 3
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 4
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 3
September 2011, Week 2
September 2011, Week 1
August 2011, Week 2
August 2011, Week 1
July 2011, Week 4
July 2011, Week 2
July 2011, Week 1
June 2011, Week 3
June 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 4
April 2011, Week 1
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 2
March 2011, Week 1
February 2011, Week 4
February 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 1
January 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager