Interreg IVB

Project no. 020A

FITT Project

Partnership Satisfaction &

Impact Survey

CRP Henri Tudor

INRIA

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Page 1 of 21

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents
I

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 3

II

SATISFACTION SURVEY......................................................................................................... 4

II.1
What? ........................................................................................................................................ 4
II.1.1 Definition ............................................................................................................................... 4
II.1.2 Satisfaction survey in Practice ............................................................................................... 4
II.1.3 Pros & Cons ........................................................................................................................ 7
II.2
Why?.......................................................................................................................................... 7
II.2.1 Rationale: Why was this established?.................................................................................... 7
II.2.2 Impact: Why is it included in the process as an essential part? ............................................. 8
II.3

Outcome .................................................................................................................................... 8

II.4

Lessons Learned? ..................................................................................................................... 8

II.5
Another approach to satisfaction survey................................................................................ 9
II.5.1 What? ..................................................................................................................................... 9
II.5.2 Why?.................................................................................................................................... 10
II.5.3 Outcome............................................................................................................................... 10
III IMPACT ASSESSMENT........................................................................................................... 11
III.1 What? ...................................................................................................................................... 11
III.1.1
Definition......................................................................................................................... 11
III.1.2
Impact Assessment in Practice ........................................................................................ 11
III.1.3
Pros & Cons .................................................................................................................. 13
III.2 Why?........................................................................................................................................ 13
Rationale.......................................................................................................................... 13
III.2.1
III.2.2
Impact: Why is it included in the process as an essential part? ....................................... 14
III.3

Outcome .................................................................................................................................. 14

III.4

Lessons Learned? ................................................................................................................... 14

IV ANNEX 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 15

CRP Henri Tudor

INRIA

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Page 2 of 21

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

INTRODUCTION

Partnership management is essential to assure the best relationship and cooperation, business or
research, between TTOs and industrial partners. A good and structured partnership management
facilitates the daily work of Technology transfer officers and increases the chances to successfully
transfer research results.
Based on experiences, knowledge and expertise within the FITT consortium, three practices have been
identified as crucial in partnership management:

The Satisfaction Survey enables to identify weaknesses and strengths of partnerships and to improve
on future collaborations. It can result in establishing mutual trust and long-lasting relationships, as
well as gaining the partners loyalty.
The Impact Assessment enables to measure the impact of transferred research results to industrial
partners by identifying the benefits coming from the transferred technology and the impact of the
transferred results on the partners organizations. On the other hand, Impact Assessment is an effective
tool to justify technology transfer activities to various stakeholders, mainly policy makers.
This document explains these two practices and identifies the value added for each of them from the
Technology Transfer Officers point of view. The examples given come from the Public Research
Center Henri Tudor & INRIA.
Partnership Agreement is treated in a separate practice in the FITT Toolbox.

CRP Henri Tudor

INRIA

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Page 3 of 21

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

II

SATISFACTION SURVEY

II.1 WHAT?
II.1.1 Definition
The satisfaction survey is a powerful tool that shows how the organization is perceived by
partners1. In this manner, the organization has a continuous feedback on its activities and can
assess its role in the economical and social environment. This satisfaction survey involves some
organizational impacts like:

Organizational culture changes

Internal process changes

Another version of the satisfaction survey includes a mirror survey: a survey carried out
internally by interviewing the staff that has been involved in a project carried out in collaboration
with a partner. This additional survey enables to identify the gap between partners satisfaction
degree and its perception from inside of the organization.
The evolution of the results over time proofs whether the new policies, actions and measures have
improved the way in which the organization interacts and exchanges with its partners.
II.1.2 Satisfaction survey in Practice
The satisfaction survey evaluation consists of specific parts which will be explained in detail in
the following section of the document:
1. Selection of satisfaction indicators
2. Getting the questionnaire ready
3. Selection of the partners to be interviewed by phone followed by a face to face interview
(based on the answers from the phone interview)
4. Running the survey
5. Results analysis and reporting
6. Results communication

II.1.2.1 Selection of satisfaction indicators

The selection of indicators depends primarily on which satisfaction aspects the organization
wants to evaluate. Another aspect to take into account is the level of the survey: a high level
evaluation with focus on global satisfaction or a more specific one with in-depth satisfaction
evaluation. In general terms, the most usual indicators relate to:
-

The quality of the provided services (training sessions, project results, etc).

In the context of PROs the word partners represents either clients or partners with a contractual or noncontractual relationship. Throughout the document we will use the word partner for both partners and clients,
without distinction.
CRP Henri Tudor
INRIA

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Page 4 of 21

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

The quality of the relationships between partners and organizations business people (persons
in contact with partners: responsible of external relationship, responsible of project definition,
etc).
The relationship with the teams in charge of the execution of the project or of those providing
the services (project team staff, trainer, etc.).
The administrative aspects (billing, partnership agreements, contractual matters, etc.).
Additional elements of the services provided (other services, documentation, support, etc).
Logistic aspects (delays, quality of the project management).
Communication aspects (quality of the information shared, access to the information, etc.).
Follow-up (partner support services, exploitation of the results).
Quality/price ratio if relevant.

Choose your criteria bearing in mind to eliminate those criteria that:

1. The organization is not able to modify.
2. Are very specific to a partner or a category of partners.
3. Have no direct impact on the quality of the service provided (e.g. image, price).
II.1.2.2 Getting the questionnaire ready
The structure and content of the questionnaire will strongly depend on the objectives and the type
of survey (see in annex 1 the questionnaire used). Two main questionnaire types can be used:

A specific one for training and educational activities if it is relevant to your organization.
Another one for other services (professional services, participation in projects, etc).

The phone is a suitable channel for larger numbers of interviews. In this case, the questionnaire
(questions) must be adapted to fit the constraints intrinsic to this communication channel:

Short interviews (not more than10 minutes).

Ask mainly quantitative rating questions (using an even scale from 1 to 6) assessing the
global quality of the service provided).
A reduced amount of open questions (around 3).

The order in which questions are asked is very important. To reduce the bias induced to the
interviewee, it is good practice to order the questions as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Global satisfaction.
Evaluation of the different aspects related to the quality of the provided services.
Evaluation of the satisfaction related to the contacts with staff.
Open questions (3) to identify the required improvement, strengths and new services to
be developed.
5. Identification of the interviewee profile: partner, project which he/she was involved, etc.

After the interview session by telephone, a small number of face to face interviews (around 10) is
highly recommended. These interviews will facilitate the identification of improvement
opportunities based on dissatisfactions mentioned during the interview. These questionnaires
must use more qualitative questions to clearly identify the causes behind the expressed
dissatisfaction.
II.1.2.3 Selection of the partners and contacts to be interviewed
The interviewees are selected from the partners base according to following criteria:

They were in contact with the organization during last year AND the collaborations
(professional services, partnership in a project, etc.) are already finished during the
evaluation year.

CRP Henri Tudor

INRIA

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Page 5 of 21

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

The selection of the sample (out of those who filled in a specific satisfaction
questionnaire at the end of a training or educational service) is made up from two
different types of partners:
o Institutional partners: ministries, chambers, professional associations, research
organisms and universities. These organizations must have long lasting
relationships with our organization on a contractual or non-contractual basis.
o Other partners: the organizations that were in contact with us during the year
before the survey and where the collaboration already finished.

II.1.2.4 Running the survey

The survey is carried out once a year. Each selected partner is contacted by phone using a predefined script. The interviewer goes through the questionnaire items. As a rule of thumb, the
average return obtained must be above 70%. Once the telephone interviews are finished, the faceto-face interviews start with those organizations that have expressed a low satisfaction
The mirror survey is also carried out following the same principles and techniques.
II.1.2.5 Results analysis and reporting
A statistical analysis of the completed questionnaires is required to quantitatively evaluate the
partners satisfaction degree according to the pre-defined criteria:

Exploitability of results
Information flow between partners and the organization
Respect of deadlines
Collaboration management
Price/quality ratio
Project follow-up
Quality of the provided services
Specificity of the proposed solutions
Clarity of the proposed services
Reactivity
Understanding of the partners needs

As mentioned before, these criteria must remain unchanged from survey to survey to see how the
satisfaction scores evolve over time and to measure the impact of the actions taken. An important
aspect of this analysis is the identification of those criteria with the biggest impact on the
partners global satisfaction. These key criteria are identified through the interviews with the
lowest scores. The results of the statistical analysis will be reported, including the following
subjects:

Results of the statistical analysis

Identified organizational strengths
Suggested improvements
Conclusions of the survey
Tracking of the satisfaction trends over time
Comparison of the results as a function of the interviewees profile

The overall survey report covers the partners satisfaction survey, the mirror satisfaction survey
and the training/educational activities satisfaction survey.

CRP Henri Tudor

INRIA

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Page 6 of 21

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

II.1.2.6 Results communication

The results of the survey are distributed both inside and outside of CRP Henri Tudor with respect
to the following order:
1. First, the results are communicated to the heads of the departments, who in turn
communicate the results to their research teams (the teams with low evaluations scores
are considered as a priority).
2. Next, the results are presented to the CRP Henri Tudors administration board.
3. Next, an executive summary of the survey results is sent to the interviewees, with focus
on the improvement actions.
4. Then, the results are published in the CRP Henri Tudors annual activity report.
The overall report of the evaluation survey is kept confidential (so no diffusion is allowed outside
of the organization).
II.1.3 Pros & Cons

Pros

This technique has enabled CRP Henri Tudor to remain aligned with the partners
needs and expectations.
After 4 years we have observed improvements on some of the satisfaction criteria.
This shows that the measures taken after the survey have had a positive impact on the
partners satisfaction.
The consciousness of the gap between internal and external perception helps to align
the staffs point of view with that of the partners (the mirror survey results).

Cons
The satisfaction criteria could be judged as being too general (the whole
organization), without providing feedback to the organizations departments, service
units or the research teams.
The evaluation criteria must evolve over time as the CRP Henri Tudors activities
evolve. However, changing the criteria quite often jeopardizes the impact of the
actions taken over time.

II.2 WHY?
II.2.1 Rationale: Why was this established?
As an ISO (ISO 90012)certified organization, we must respect quality levels and processes in our
activities. This certification is only one of the motivations, others are:

Know the points of view of our partners and position the organization in function of this
insight.
Gather those points of view in a neutral contact or context (not a commercial one).
Use good or outstanding results as relevant and selling arguments for:
o Potential partners

ISO 9001:2000 specifies requirements for a quality management system where an organization:
1. needs to demonstrate its ability to consistently provide products that meet customers needs and are
compliant to applicable regulatory requirements.
2. aims to enhance customer satisfaction through the effective application of the system, including processes
for continuous improvement of the system and the assurance of compliance to customers and applicable
regulatory requirements.

CRP Henri Tudor

INRIA

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Page 7 of 21

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

o
o

Prospects
Employees

II.2.2 Impact: Why is it included in the process as an essential part?

Even if a longer time frame is required to evaluate the real benefits of the actions taken, the
satisfaction survey provides continuous feedback to CRP Henri Tudor to improve its interaction
with externals.
The presentation of the results to the internal staff (mainly at the management level) enables them
to improve specific aspects during their day to day activities. The latter is of course more relevant
for those in close contact with our partners.
The satisfaction survey, carried out on a regular basis, is an excellent tool for organizational selfimprovement: identifying weaknesses and strengths, implementing actions to reduce weaknesses
and following up on the effectiveness of those improvement actions over time.
From a partnership point of view, the satisfaction survey is a strategy to keep the partners in the
loop. It is an external communication tool telling our partners how important they are for CRP
Henri Tudor. As a consequence:
o
o
o
o

We need a pool of active partners ready to be involved in our research activities (on
contractual or non-contractual basis).
The same partners are sometimes involved in our technology transfer activities as a
natural continuation of their participation in our research projects.
Some partners are involved in more strategic activities at CRP Henri Tudor, like helping
to define the research roadmap at corporate and department levels.
Other partners are involved in the advisory boards and working groups in research
projects (formal or informal).

II.3 OUTCOME
The outputs may differ depending on the selected evaluation criteria. Some criteria have evolved
positively, other ones negatively. Nevertheless, the global perception on CRP Henri Tudor has
improved over time. However, it is still too early to state its impact on the organization.
The satisfaction survey has been totally integrated into the CRP Henri Tudor culture and even has
become a landmark in the CRP Henri Tudors annual report. No unexpected or undesirable side
effects have been observed yet.
Next steps and evolutions:
Measure of CRP Henri Tudors innovation impact
Analysis of the brand value
Carry out a specific satisfaction survey focusing on the type of collaboration (service
supply or collaboration in research projects)
Link satisfaction indicators and organizational performance indicators

II.4 LESSONS LEARNED?

Partner segmentation is of utmost importance to be successful in this domain.

A detailed data analysis enables to identify improvement opportunities and the key
satisfaction criteria
Tracking of the satisfaction evolution over time: experience shows that the improvement
requires a long time span to be observed whereas the satisfaction degradation can be
observed more quickly.

CRP Henri Tudor

INRIA

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Page 8 of 21

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

Practical recommendations to avoid mistakes:

o The sample has to be big enough to guarantee a high degree of confidence on
statistical analysis results. As a rule of thumb, the results coming up from a sample
lower than 50 individuals are considered as being not reliable.
o The survey must be considered as a partner perception. The results must not be
considered as the strongest indicator to measure the organizations performance. To
be relevant and useful, these perception results must be compared to more specific
ones.

II.5 ANOTHER APPROACH TO SATISFACTION SURVEY

II.5.1 What?

II.5.1.1 Definition
INRIA has started to work on the process of evaluation of transfer activities within research
collaborations. This evaluation is meant to analyze the performance of a PRO (Public Research
Organization) from the point of view of the partner, as well as of the PROs staff. This allows not only
the measurement of partners satisfaction, but also the detection of the possible gap between internal
and external perception. The results can provide useful conclusions on different aspects of partnerships
and the possible improvements.

II.5.1.2 Evaluation of transfer activities in practice

The first step towards introduction of this process was a reflection followed by drafting a set of
guidelines (See practice Partnership Agreement). The process consists of collecting a number of well
defined data coming from people working on research projects both in INRIA and in the partner
organization. The collected data is used as an input to diverse analyzes and is grouped in six
categories:
-

Quality of the collaboration (relations between individuals)

Positioning of the collaboration (why we have worked together)
Usage and impact of the results
Quality of deliverables
Irregularities / vagaries of the collaborations (problems and their causes)
Human cost of the collaboration

The guidelines describe the objective of each category of data and the main questions to be asked in
order to obtain the right data. The meaning of each group of questions is explained to be able to
interpret the results. The construction of the questionnaire is of high importance for the efficiency of
the process and the reliability of the results. The guidelines propose a structure for each question and
possible options for the answer (for details see annex 1). The emphasis is put on data collection and
therefore we avoid the use of open questions. It is a strong recommendation to avoid all ambiguities
and to privilege clear and simple questions, even if some issues are difficult to approach in this way
(e.g. impact of the results).
Nevertheless, some further work needs to be done to draft a concrete questionnaire on this basis to
evaluate a partnership. The questionnaire should have two versions: one for the PRO and one for the
partner. The time span of evaluation should be ideally from two to three years, starting from the
moment when the first data is available. A diversity of contributors should be involved, if possible.
CRP Henri Tudor
INRIA

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Page 9 of 21

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

Once collected, the data should be updated after this period on the aspects of usage and exploitation of
the results (12 to 18 months after the end of the collaboration), so that its analysis could bring a truly
valuable outcome.

II.5.1.3 Pros & Cons

Pros
o
o

o
o

The evaluation guidelines are oriented at research partnerships, which make them a
valuable tool for the PRO to perform a specific analysis.
The goal is to be able to assess the perception of research collaboration by the actors
that have been involved in the collaboration - a research team and an industrial partner
- and to measure a possible gap in the satisfaction perceived from both sides.
Corrective measures and adaptation of collaboration criteria can then be initiated.
The open format allows creation of different versions of the questionnaire depending
on the survey method (online survey, data collected by TT officers, interns or external
organizations, etc.); it also allows adjustment of the content and creation of a specific
questionnaire for each partnership.
The guidelines can be adapted to evaluate collaboration within other networks as well
as for European projects.

Cons
o
o

There is no ready to use questionnaire, but it has to be drafted using the guidelines.
The evaluation takes quite long in order to guarantee relevant results. Also obtaining
the engagement of various contributors after the end of the project can be difficult, in
particular on the partners side.
These guidelines should be completed in the future with details on methods of
analysis of the data and presentation of the results.

II.5.2 Why?

II.5.2.1 Rationale: Why was this established?

This evaluation is perceived as one of the ways to better meet the needs of society as well as partners
expectations, improving the quality of collaboration and its results. The ability to evaluate the outcome
and the performance of the collaboration and to apply corrective steps, if needed, allows to make
partners come back to work with the PRO who has put in place such practices.

II.5.3 Outcome
The process of evaluation of research partnerships has not yet been introduced in INRIAs activities.
The reflection phase has come to an end and now the measures should be taken to start collecting and
analyzing data on partnerships, using the guidelines presented above.

CRP Henri Tudor

INRIA

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Page 10 of
21

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

III

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

III.1 WHAT?
III.1.1 Definition
As defined by the EARTO (European Association of Research and Technology Organizations),
Research and Technology Organizations (RTOs3) are specialized knowledge organizations dedicated
to the development and transfer of science and technology to the benefit of the economy and society.
As a RTO, the main mission of CRP Henri Tudor is to work for a continually better society for
Luxemburg. Therefore the Impact Assessment for research activities and transfer is really important,
even if it is not an easy activity to manage.
Impact Assessment is a process that assesses the change in the well-being of the individual or the
performances of organizations that can be a result of a specific project, service provided or transferred
research outcome.
In the short term, the Impact Assessment for RTO is considered as an activity to measure the impact of
research and transfer activities on social, economical and environmental fields.
III.1.2 Impact Assessment in Practice
In past years, CRP Henri Tudor tried to implement this practice without a real success. The main
reason already identified was that the impact assessment was carried out too early (just after the end of
research projects) and with no appropriate impact indicators. In fact, experience has shown that each
decision and action taken in an organization has an impact on the whole of the organizations services
and activities. That made it difficult to isolate and assess how the transferred result increased the
performance of the partners organization.
CRP Henri Tudor is currently reworking and rethinking the process of Impact Assessment. The review
is based on best practices from other European RTOs. As the process itself is at an early development
stage, this document will describe the best practices identified and give guidelines for an Impact
Assessment practice that will be used for the new Impact Assessment Process in CRP Henri Tudor.
III.1.2.1 Impact in the research chain
In order to identify the process of research and transfer activities of a RTO, and to point out the stage
with the biggest impact, here is a picture of a simplified research project chain.

In this document we will consider that a PRO is a special case of an RTO. The difference only refers to the
status of the organization itself (public or private). We will not make any difference between both terms.
CRP Henri Tudor
INRIA

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Page 11 of
21

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

III.1.2.2 Categories and impact indicators

The Impact Assessment will measure the impact of research and transfer activities on different
categories of impact and related indicators. These categories depend on who will benefit from the
research or transfer projects. Here is a list of examples of indicators according to the category of
impacts.

Category of impacts

Example of indicators

Impact on economy, technology and

commercialization

Impact on knowledge, expertise and

human capital

Impact on networking and social capital

Impact on decision making and public

discourse

Impact
on
environment

social

and

physical

Competitiveness Improvement
Product/Service/Process/ Creation/Improvement
Cost-savings
R&D Efficiency Improvement
Research Methods Creation/Improvement
Patent Applications
Expertise strengthening
Research Methods Improvement
Scientific
Impacts:
scientific
publications,
conference and seminar presentation
Improvement of networking between research
partners, firms, etc.
Network creation
Domestic networks, Global networks
Organizational and social innovations
Support of decision making through expert
consultancy and governmental advice
Participation in legislative and strategic planning
Norms, Regulation and standards
Material/Resources and/or Energy Consumption
Reduction
Regional development and growth Promotion
Safety Promotion
Infrastructure Development

III.1.2.3 Impact Assessment method

The Impact assessment can be handled by a survey. The questionnaire is fitted to the type of partner.
The survey might be outsourced to ensure impartiality of the results. Selection of projects needs to be
done in an effective way: not all the projects have impact on the society and some of them do not fit
with the Impact Assessment.
III.1.2.4 Sampling for Impact assessment
The interviewed partner must be selected from the partners base who were in contact with the RTO
during the last years AND where the collaboration object (professional services, partnership in a
project, ) is closed for two or three years. The selection of the sample is made for two different
types of partners:

Institutional partners: Ministries, Chambers, Professional Associations, Research Organisms

and Universities

Customers: who received a provision of a service (research, consultancy,)

CRP Henri Tudor

INRIA

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Page 12 of
21

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

III.1.2.5 Impact assessment frequency

The impact assessment can be carried out once a year with selected partners (the sample) to ensure a
good follow-up on the evolution of the impact indicators from year to year.
III.1.2.6 Results diffusion
The results of the Impact Assessment survey have to be communicated to different stakeholders such
as:

Management team of the RTO for integrating results in everyday management

Supervision Ministry of the RTO for steering RTO activities and resources
Partners (e.g. in Annual Report) for communication and loyalty

III.1.3 Pros & Cons

Pros

The Impact Assessment and communication of results to various stakeholders is very

important to justify the public funding of research projects. It strengthens the RTO
positioning as a partner-centric research center providing innovation to improve their
business and activities.
In a self-improvement process, the Impact Assessment allows to be more aligned
with the partners needs and expectations.
By underlining the positive impacts created by RTO research results and transfer, the
Impact Assessment becomes an excellent mean for communication. The publication
of good results improves the corporate image among the stakeholders.

Cons
Impact indicators are difficult to identify and evaluate.
For partners, impacts from research and transfer collaboration are sometimes difficult
to isolate from the other actions engaged by the organization. Every action engaged
in a specific department or service has an impact on the other ones making it difficult
to assess the contribution of the improvement measure in question.
A long timeframe between the end of the research project and the Impact Assessment
is required to get reliable results. That can be an issue for some partners that need to
observe or assess the results quickly.

III.2 WHY?
III.2.1 Rationale
As mentioned in the introduction, as a RTO, CRP Henri Tudor has the mission of to work for a
continually better society. Because of their dedication to this mission, CRP Henri Tudor needs to
demonstrate that its activities have a real impact on society. Impact assessment is the best way to
qualify the effects of its research and transfer activities. As a public funded RTO (PRO), CRP
Henri Tudor, as most of the RTOs, needs to justify how the public money has been invested by
showing results and translate them into Key Performance Indicators (KPI). For the moment,
KPIs are only based on scientific publications, spin-off creation and license distribution. It would
be good if also the impact indicators were integrated in those KPIs. Another reason is that this
practice also allows being closer to partners. It gives the opportunity to be aware of the gap
CRP Henri Tudor
INRIA

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Page 13 of
21

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

between internal RTOs perception and the real perception that partners have on RTOs research
and transfer activities.
To be more efficient, Impact assessment should be linked to the satisfaction survey.
III.2.2 Impact: Why is it included in the process as an essential part?
In spite of the low success of implementing this practice for the first time, CRP Henri Tudor is
convinced that Impact Assessment is essential to justify and improve its reputation as an
organization in the society. This practice is not easy to implement and really needs to be adapted
case by case for each organization. The most sensitive part is the selection of the right impact
indicators. This selection is closely related to the core activity of the research organization and the
partners.
At CRP Henri Tudor, this practice will be linked to the corporate strategy. By getting assessments
of the impact of our activities in the economic, environmental and social context, CRP Henri
Tudor will be able to justify their role as a valuable RTO in the country. Moreover, this will proof
to the Ministries that CRP Henri Tudor is investing in public research projects with a real impact
on the countrys society and its economy.
The communication activities around Impact Assessment results can follow the same steps as
presented in the Satisfaction survey section (III.1.2.6). From a partnership point of view, the
impact assessment survey can be used as a strategic tool to keep the partners in the loop. At the
same time it is an excellent external communication tool tell to our partners how important it is for
CRP Henri Tudor to have a positive impact on their activities.

III.3 OUTCOME
The outputs differ depending on the selected impact criteria. Without real implementation, it is too
early to claim if the Impact Assessment survey will contribute to or will be responsible for a
performance improvement of CRP Henri Tudor.

III.4 LESSONS LEARNED?

Thanks to previous experiences in Impact Assessment activities at CRP Henri Tudor, we have
been able to identify the critical points. The most important ones are: the selection of impact
criteria and the timeframe required to run the Impact Assessment Survey. Being not specific
enough in impact criteria could create confusion and frustration to partners being interviewed. On
the other hand, if the Impact Assessment is done too early, partners will not be able to accurately
estimate the impact on their activities. Based on the results and lessons learned from past
experiences, CRP Henri Tudor is engaged to rethink the whole process and to integrate the best
practices coming from other European RTOs as mentioned in this document.

CRP Henri Tudor

INRIA

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Page 14 of
21

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

IV

Annex 1

Satisfaction Survey in CRP Henri Tudor - Questionnaire

Question 000 Introduction

At reception:
Hello, my name is ... ... and I am working for Quest. We are mandated by the Public
Research Center Henri Tudor to gauge the satisfaction of its clients and partners.
Could I speak to Mr. / Ms ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ?
If absent:
When do you think I can get back in touch with Mr. / Ms ... ... ... ...?
To the respondent:
Hello Mr / Ms ... ... ... I'm ... .... and I am working for Quest. We are mandated by the Public
Research Center Henri Tudor to gauge the satisfaction of its clients and partners.
We sent you a letter on the subject. You would help me a lot if I could ask you some
questions. It will only last 5 minutes.
If refusal:
If you do not have time now, I can call you at your convenience..

Series 1100 Satisfaction in general

IV.1.1.1.1.1.1 Question 1100

First, I ask you to evaluate your satisfaction concerning your collaboration with the Public
Research Centre Henri Tudor. Please use a scale from 1 to 6, with 1 meaning that you are
not satisfied at all, 6 meaning that you are completely satisfied
Not
satisfied
1

Very
satisfied
2

Not
Applicable
0

IV.1.1.1.1.1.2 Series 1200 Satisfaction on aspects of collaboration

I will now cite some aspects about the collaboration. Could you please evaluate these
aspects using the same model as for the previous question? (1 being not satisfied at all, 6,
being very satisfied).

CRP Henri Tudor

INRIA

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Page 15 of
21

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

IV.1.1.1.1.1.3 Question 1201

The exploration, understanding and taking into account of your organization's needs
Not
satisfied
1

Very
satisfied
2

Not
Applicable
0

IV.1.1.1.1.1.4 Question 1202

Reactivity and response time in relation to your questions and applications
Not
satisfied
1

Very
satisfied
2

Not
Applicable
0

IV.1.1.1.1.1.5 Question 1203

The clarity of the offers and services
Not
satisfied
1

Very
satisfied
2

Not
Applicable
0

IV.1.1.1.1.1.6 Question 1204

The relevance of the offered services and solutions
Not
satisfied
1

Very
satisfied
2

Not
Applicable
0

IV.1.1.1.1.1.7 Question 1205

The quality of the services itself
Not
satisfied
1

CRP Henri Tudor

INRIA

Very
satisfied
2

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Not
Applicable
0

Page 16 of
21

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

IV.1.1.1.1.1.8 Question 1206

The monitoring of the project and file (contract, invoices, after sales services...)
Not
satisfied

Very
satisfied

Not
Applicable

IV.1.1.1.1.1.9 Question 1207

The quality/price ratio of the services

Not
satisfied
1

Very
satisfied
2

Not
Applicable
0

IV.1.1.1.1.1.10 Question 1208

The respect of deadlines
Not
satisfied
1

Very
satisfied
2

Not
Applicable
0

IV.1.1.1.1.1.11 Question 1209

The quality and flow of information between the Centre and you
Not
satisfied
1

Very
satisfied
2

Not
Applicable
0

IV.1.1.1.1.1.12 Question 1210

The utility and usefulness of the results of the Centre's services
Not
satisfied
1

CRP Henri Tudor

INRIA

Very
satisfied
2

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Not
Applicable
0

Page 17 of
21

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

IV.1.1.1.1.1.13 Series 1300 Satisfaction on aspects of collaborators

I will now explore the quality of your relationship with the staff of the Centre. We will follow
the same method: you give me an assessment of 1 to 6 (1 being not satisfied at all, 6, being
very satisfied).
IV.1.1.1.1.1.14 Question 1301
The ease of identifying the right partner/contact at the Centre
Not
satisfied
1

Very
satisfied
2

Not
Applicable
0

IV.1.1.1.1.1.15 Question 1302

The ease of getting in touch with the staff of the Centre
Not
satisfied
1

Very
satisfied
2

Not
Applicable
0

IV.1.1.1.1.1.16 Question 1303

The flexibility and availability of the Centre's staff
Not
satisfied
1

Very
satisfied
2

Not
Applicable
0

IV.1.1.1.1.1.17 Question 1304

The employees' ability to solve problems and propose accurate solutions
Not
satisfied
1

Very
satisfied
2

Not
Applicable
0

IV.1.1.1.1.1.18 Question 1305

The professional competence of the Centre's staff
Not
satisfied
CRP Henri Tudor
INRIA
1

Very
satisfied
2

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

3
4
5

Not
Applicable
Page 18 of
21
0

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

IV.1.1.1.1.1.19 Question 1306

The social competence of the Centre's staff
Not
satisfied
1

CRP Henri Tudor

INRIA

Very
satisfied
2

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Not
Applicable
0

Page 19 of
21

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

IV.1.1.1.1.1.20 Series 1400 Open Questions

IV.1.1.1.1.1.21 Question 1401

What would be, according to your opinion, an improvement priority for the Centre?
(Explore)
..
..
..

IV.1.1.1.1.1.22 Question 1402

What is in your opinion, the Centres major asset?
(Explore)
..
..
..

IV.1.1.1.1.1.23 Question 1403

What services / products would you like to see being developed by the Centre?
(Explore)
..
..
..
IV.1.1.1.1.1.24 Series 1500 CV of the organisation

IV.1.1.1.1.1.25 Question 1501

For how long did your company collaborate with the Centre?
For less than a year
Between 1 and 2 years
Between 3 and 5 years
Between 5 and 10 years
More than 10 years
Don't know

IV.1.1.1.1.1.26 Question 1503

Which function do you exactly occupy in your company?
(Encode the exact denomination)
CRP Henri Tudor
INRIA

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Page 20 of
21

Interreg IVB
Project no. 020A

FITT Project

IV.1.1.1.1.1.27 Question 1504

(Do not ask encode)
Name of the company:

IV.1.1.1.1.1.28 Question 1505

(Do not ask encode)
Name of the respondent:

IV.1.1.1.1.1.29 Question 1506

Category "client"
Client lab materials (LTI)
Client lab metrology (LTI)
Client technological / regulatory / legislative (CVT)
Client training / education
Client start up
Client Project: encode name of project: ..

IV.1.1.1.1.1.30 Question 2000 End & save

On behalf of the Public Research Centre Henri Tudor, I would like to thank you for your time
as well as for your cooperation in this investigation.

Thank you and goodbye.

CRP Henri Tudor

INRIA

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Page 21 of
21