New Search
INVESTIGATIONS SERVICE PROFILE EVALUATION <br /> 1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree <br /> Questions Mean 1 2 3 4 <br /> The Service Profile succeeds in capturing: The 2.00 — <br /> service description (narrative, historic perspective, <br /> citizen /customer input) <br /> Key change areas for the next two to three years 2.60 <br /> (strategies, objectives, and work plan activities) <br /> The process view (system map, core process and 2.40 __ <br /> system performance measures) <br /> The service team assembled was made up of the right 2.40 -- <br /> people to do this Service Profile. <br /> The process encouraged effective communication 2.00 Imo <br /> among team members. <br /> The process helped our team identify the most 2.80 <br /> important issues for us to work on <br /> Overall, I felt that developing the profile was a good 3.20 <br /> use of my time. <br /> The facilitators were well organized. 1.40 - <br /> The facilitators engaged the group effectively. 1.40 - <br /> Instructions for respondents consisted of indicating how much they agreed or disagreed with the <br /> above statements. Of the five possible members of the Investigations Service Team, five <br /> responded to the survey questionnaire given to the team in July, 1996. <br /> II -35 <br />