Brian et al...

I think this is a great survey, seems comprehensive and well-organized.

But I would suggest adding the following question to every survey:

"If you were to rank all of the factors that can make a grant proposal successful in terms of percentage of overall importance, what is the highest percentage that could ever be given to the assistance provided by your institution's office of sponsored projects?"

Then determine the association between satisfaction and perceptions about the importance of pre-award research administration.

My problem with these surveys, particularly given the response rate issue, is the difficulty in distinguishing those researchers who 1) think you are god's gift to their career and funding success because you smile and showed them how to use SPIN from those who 2) consider you a pissant in the grant seeking effort despite the fact that you told them when and where to apply, did their budget, provided boilerplate text, and edited/proofread the entire document prior to submission.  Ironically, depending on your type of institution and faculty clientele, your importance as an administrator may derive mainly from your contact with those who think you are worthless.

The issue is complex, and frustrating, because the general equation that relates grantsmanship (broadly defined) and grant proposal success is not linear.  The importance of each of the factors varies depending on many things specific to the proposal, the investigator, the institution, the funder, and the reviewers. And of course the true importance of sponsored projects activities is confused because we must juggle our responsibilities to academic freedom, fiscal prudence, and the well-being of our species.  We have to admit that the brilliant idea underlying a proposal is paramount while simultaneously screaming about red flags and presentation.  We have to assist individual applicants in their proximal efforts while simultaneously demanding adherence to rules that are in place to protect the institution and all applicants over the long-term.

Somehow it all works and we have important and interesting jobs despite those customers who are just not satisfied.

Charlie

At 08:47 AM 1/15/2004, you wrote:
>For what it's worth, here is a satisfaction survey that I developed for my
>office.  Much of it is specific to services that we provide at Eastern
>Michigan University, but may serve as a model to get you started.
>
>We administered it on-line annually for a 3-year period and got a pretty
>good response from our faculty.  The results were useful in  helping us zero
>in on problem areas and revising the services that we provide.
>
>You may want to check out Dave Bauer's book, "How to Evaluate & Improve Your
>Grants Effort."  My survey was used as an example in his book (and no, I
>don't get any royalties).
>
>
>------------------------
>Brian Anderson, Director
>Office of Research Development
>Eastern Michigan University
>Starkweather Hall, 2nd Floor
>Ypsilanti, MI  48197
>Office: (734) 487-3090
>Fax: (734) 481-0650
>Email: xxxxxx@emich.edu
>
>
>

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
 via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================