Thank you so much for your thorough and thoughtful reply Ian - this is really great stuff. We've been working through your points as per the responses embedded below.
- I
couldn’t find anything that stated how many report sources there would be
and what they will be called. By looking through the different reports it
looks like there will be 3 new sources, is this right?: Feedback
aggregated responses, Feedback
detail responses,Feedback
status
To an extent we're still shaking that out - seeing what we need based on the draft spec and what is possible development wise within available time. I think we'll certainly have 3 different types of reports - whether they are from different sources is TBC for now.
- Will
all reports showing in the 360 Feedback “dashboard” be embedded reports
that can be edited?
360 Feedback reports will be embedded reports.
- It
looks like there will be a new Site Admin navigation “Performance”, I
presume this will replace “Appraisals”? I mention this as in some of the
table rows it refers to Performance nav and some it refers to Appraisals
nav e.g. report id 100 and report id 120.
There will likely be some new Site Admin navigation to accommodate the Performance/Reports area accommodating both Appraisals and 360 Feedback reports but Appraisals won't be replaced/removed.
- In
the aggregated results report source, the questions that cannot be aggregated,
will they appear in the table as blank? It looks like they do on report ID
40.
I'll be deferring to our wonderful UX team on that
- Will
the columns work similarly to the current “Appraisal Detail” source,
whereby you select all or nothing for questions to include, rather than individually
selecting each question?
We're using the Appraisal reports as a basis for the 360 Feedback reports so it will be as consistent as possible for users.
- If
the above two questions are yes, it’s worth considering how the report
would look if there were many text-based questions with only one that was a
numeric value. The report would display multiple blank columns with only 1
column of value. Could the report instead only show the columns that
contain data that can be aggregated?
Again, I'll defer to the advice of the UX team, but I suspect something like your suggested approach will be implemented.
- In
the aggregated results source, will the averages work when measuring
against organisations/positions as well as Users? E.g. I want a report
that shows average results and number of responders against each
organisation (using the same form). I am thinking the report to be similar
to ID 80 but with Org/Pos name rather than User name in the first column
and without viewing responses.
That's a great idea - I don't think we'll have time to include that in Phase 1 of development for the v11 release, but I'll note this down as a Phase 2+ idea.
- In the aggregated results source will the
“Number of responders” have any aggregation options e.g. Percentage? It
would be good to have a percentage for each user to show how many of their
form requests have been responded to.
At this stage it will be just a count, but I can also add this as an improvement/new feature suggestion.
- Teminology:
Is “Owner” the right name for the user that has requested feedback? The
word feels quite technical and not sure how much it would make sense for
users. How about “Requester”? It fits better with “Responder”.
You make an interesting point. I think it would be an idea for us to poll the Community on that. I can see an argument for both options.
- Terminology:
Is “Aggregated” the right word for the reports of averages? Yes it’s the
technically correct word, but it isn’t a very accessible term for many users,
and although it’s used in report builder already, I’d personally like to
see less of it. There are lots of technical and jargon language used in
the interface and this adds to it. Could “average” be used in it’s place?
e.g. report id 80 “Average results
for your team” is much more accessible.
I agree. I think we went with Aggregated to avoid the question of what type of average the results were taking (mode, median, mean) I'll update the requirements doc accordingly.
- Minor comment on the wireframes: can all
references to 360 Feedback include the degrees symbol and a capital “F”?
In report id 100 the report is called “Status Report – 360 feedbacks for
your team” which reads like there are 360 pieces of feedback about my
team. I would expect that to say instead “Status Report – 360° Feedback
for your team”
We're aiming at capital F in Feedback, one ninja lowercase f slipped through on the wireframes.
- In
the Status report source will the number of requests/responses etc be able
to be measured against org/pos etc? Will there be further aggregation options
on these columns to show percentage?
For this Phase it is unlikely, but I'll add this to the tracker for future development.
- I
may have missed it but is there an option in the Status source to show a
report of all people I have requested from and there status as text? E.g.
I am Bob Smith and can see Nancy Cartwright’s response is Pending/Overdue.
It would be good if there was so that a pie chart could be created to show
total number of pending, overdue, completed for a user, team, organisation
etc.
At this stage, that is out of scope for Phase 1 pending the refactoring of the Report Builder and following improvements to the graphical reporting tool.
- Request:
In the status source could there be colour coding for due date column?
Like RAG for certifications but red for overdue, amber for due, green for
not-due.
I can certainly add that an improvement/new feature request
- How will these reports work for 360 with
Self Evaluation? Will the Owner and Responder columns have duplicate
names? Can there be something to indicate that it is self-evaluation? A
column for "Is self-evaluation complete?" would be good, with another
column indicating if it was optional or mandatory. That way managers
could report on numbers of users that have self-evaluated when it was
optional. Having "is complete" and "is not complete" columns that can be
aggregated would have the added benefit of being able to easily create
report graphs.
Good question! I'll flag this for discussion/consideration internally.
