CRP Evaluation Analysis Sunflower Project Chris Lewis, Stacey Calhoon and Annette Witt January 13, 2009.

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

5

CRPs Respondents Participated In:

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

14

Questions and Answers

??