Business case for a harmonised approach to employee surveys in the Australian Public Service

Downloads

• Business case for a harmonised approach to employee surveys in the Australian Public Service (PDF)

This data is due to be released in response to a Freedom of Information request for code of conduct data for 2009-10 and 2010-11. All agencies have been advised of the release of this data.

• 2009-10 code of conduct data by Agency.xlsx
• 2010-11 code of conduct data by Agency.xlsx

Web version

• Executive summary
• Introduction
• Proposal summary
• Consideration and selection of preferred option
• Financial analysis
• Implementation issues
• Risks
• Appendixes

About LECG

LECG is a global expert services firm providing objective and strategic analysis and advice on complex matters of public policy, litigation, regulation and business strategy. Since the early 1990s, our experts and professional staff have worked on over 18,000 assignments for over 9,900 clients in over 50 countries.

LECG’s over 1000 experts and professionals throughout the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific region include academics at leading universities, experienced industry leaders, seasoned consultants and former senior government officials.

Executive summary

This business case analyses a proposal for harmonised arrangements for conducting employee surveys within the Australian Public Service (APS). The proposal aims to achieve administrative cost savings, as well as assist in the generation of consistent data among agencies which could be used for comparative purposes.

The proposal

Currently, most APS agencies conduct surveys of their employees on an annual or biennial basis (just over 75 per cent). In addition, the Australian Public Service Commission (the Commission) conducts an annual sample survey of APS employees for the State of the Service Report (SOSR). In summary, the proposal in this business case is for the State of the Service (SOS) employee survey

• to be conducted biennially rather than annually, and
• to be extended to include a census–based survey of employees of
  • all small agencies¹ that do not currently receive agency data results
  • or any larger agencies that might wish to opt in to the arrangement.
• The Commission would provide agency–specific survey outcomes to all participating agencies.

It is therefore assumed that agencies that participated in the extended SOS survey arrangements would no longer need to conduct their own employee surveys.

Financial analysis

In the process of finalising this business case, an indicative financial analysis was undertaken. Cost estimates were derived on the basis of data collected from a sample of agencies. A rigorous check of the consistency of the data was not possible in the time available.

The financial analysis indicates that employee surveys across the APS currently cost the Australian Government annually an average of $4.8 million to administer. The cost of employees’ time spent responding to these surveys reaches an annual average of around $1.8 million.²

The financial analysis considers the comparative costs of the proposed survey arrangements in operation, that is, it does not take into account any up front establishment or implementation costs. Qualitative benefits of the proposal were unquantified, for example the generation of potential benchmarking data among agencies.

The financial analysis suggests that a small overall net benefit to the APS as a whole would be possible from the proposed new survey arrangements. The cost to the Australian Government to administer employee surveys under the proposal is estimated to be around an average of $4.2 million per annum, with the cost of employees’ time spent on survey responses reaching around an average of $1.6 million per annum.³

The analysis also shows that savings would continue to grow, the larger the pool of respondents included in the extended SOS employee survey. This is predicated on participating agencies discontinuing their individual agency surveys in favour of the survey conducted by the Commission on their behalf.

Implementation issues and risks

A number of issues would need to be addressed in the implementation of the proposal. These include

• consultation with potential participating agenciesto confirm participation, to develop an implementation plan, and to develop the common survey content
• suitable timing of the survey within the calendar year
• governance arrangements
• set–up issues, including training of personnel, development of a communication strategy
• data access and data security
• impost on respondents
• monitoring and review of implementation.

The business case identifies a number of risks to the success of the new arrangements. The main impact would be a diminution of the benefits of the proposed arrangements. Risks include

• lack of interest among agencies to participate in harmonised arrangements
• lack of agreement on the common survey content
• agencies would not find the extended SOS biennial survey sufficient to meet their needs and hence augment it with additional surveys
• provider costs would be greater than expected
• the Commission would not have the capacity or capability to implement the new arrangements.

Consultation

The consideration of options for whole–of–government employee survey arrangements was undertaken in consultation with a number of agencies. These agencies are listed in Appendix 1. The process of consultation led to refinement of the options and identification of the proposal that is the subject of this business case.

Section 1: Introduction

Background

In February 2010, at a Portfolio Secretaries Meeting, the Public Service Commissioner discussed the latest State of the Service Report (SOSR) employee survey. He canvassed the possibility of harmonising employee surveys conducted across the Australian Public Service (APS). Secretaries identified the possibility of benefits including:

• a reduction in duplication of effort in designing and conducting employee surveys, giving rise to possible administrative savings across the APS
• the generation of comparable data across the APS, which would enable benchmarking and other comparisons.

In addition, there was thought to be scope for harmonised arrangements giving small⁴ agencies in the APS an increased capability to receive agency–specific reports from findings of the State of the Service (SOS) employee survey. These agencies currently face a high per capita cost to survey employees.

The Australian Public Service Commission (the Commission) was tasked to follow up the harmonisation concept and collected a range of data on current employee survey practice from agencies between March – May 2010. In considering this information, the Commissioner asked the Commission’s SOS team to investigate the merits, particularly the benefit–cost outcome, of a whole of government (WOG) procurement arrangement.

Business Case Methodology

The major steps in the development of this business case were as follows:

1. Development of options

An initial option for harmonised arrangements was developed by the Commission with the assistance of a working party of staff from a small number of other agencies. The list of agencies is at Appendix 1.

2. Feasibility testing

The initial option was taken to a feasibility–testing stage. The option was circulated to a selection of agencies, representing a range in terms of employee sizes and public sector business type. These agencies then participated in a series of consultation workshops to test the option in concept and to give views on whether it could be implemented in practice.

The list of agencies that were consulted in this feasibility testing stage is also at Appendix 1.

3. Development of a revised proposal

The analysis of feedback from the feasibility–testing stage led to the development of a revised proposal for a harmonised APS employee survey system. The revised proposal is the subject of this business case document.

4. Financial analysis

Data was collected from the Commission and a sample of participating agencies regarding the costs and other aspects of current employee survey procedures. This data was used to estimate the costs of current employee survey arrangements for the APS as a whole. It was also used to extrapolate estimates for survey arrangements under the proposal. Cost estimates were constructed on an average annual cost basis, so as to compare options.

The financial analysis hinges on a comparison of average per annum costs of the current and proposed survey arrangements in operation.

5. Implementation issues and risks

The business case also addresses, in a preliminary way, implementation issues and risks associated with the proposal.

Section 2: Proposal summary

Objective

The proposal considered in this business case provides for a harmonised, or whole–of–government, set of arrangements for undertaking employee surveys within the Australian Public Service (APS), to achieve the following main aims:

• the generation of administrative cost savings, through a reduction in duplication of effort and costs among APS agencies, particularly small agencies
• to assist in the generation of data which is consistent among agencies and hence could be used for comparisons and benchmarking purposes.

Scope

The proposal covers employee surveys conducted by individual APS agencies as well as the annual employee survey conducted by the Commission for the SOSR.

APS agencies within scope of the proposal are those with employee numbers greater than 100. These are the agencies currently captured within the SOS employee survey. They are listed at Appendix 2. Agencies with fewer than 100 employees are not surveyed under the SOSR as it is not possible to guarantee the anonymity of respondents in the breakdown of data results.

Proposal description

Current arrangements

The present system of APS employee surveys operates broadly as follows:

• Just over 75 per cent of all APS agencies, with greater than 100 employees, conduct their own surveys of employees.
• While the purposes of the surveys are specific to each agency, there is broad commonality among agencies in the issues and themes covered. Individual agency surveys serve a variety of purposes, including
  • collection of data on employee engagement
  • views on conditions of service
  • measurement of the success of corporate strategies
  • to feed into assessment of managers’ and organisational units’ performance
  • as a component of strategies to build trust and morale within agencies.
• Most agency–based surveys are conducted as a census of employees.
  • The level of disaggregation is commonly very high, with breakdown of data to work unit level. This enables data to feed into workplace management strategies.
• Frequency of individual agency surveys varies, from quarterly through to periodic, every three to five years.
  • Information collected by the Commission indicates that most agencies survey their employees biennially (around 38 per cent). The next most common frequency was annual (around 22 per cent).
• About 30 per cent of the small APS agencies currently do not conduct surveys of their employees.
• Separate to the individual agency surveys, the Commission conducts a survey of APS employees. This survey provides data for the SOSR.
  • The SOS employee and agency surveys are conducted annually.
  • It is conducted as a random, stratified sample.
  • The number of respondents reaches around 6000.
  • The employee survey covers themes of employee engagement, and a values–based framework.
• The Commission provides results from the SOS employee survey data to agencies with employee numbers above 400.⁵

Proposed new arrangements (preferred option)

The proposal is for harmonisation of employee surveying arrangements that would operate as follows:

Scenario A

• The SOS agency survey, which will be increasingly important for monitoring agencies’ human capital strategies, would continue to be administered annually.
• The SOS APS employee survey would be conducted biennially rather than annually.
• The survey would be conducted on the basis of a stratified sample for larger agencies (as at present), but on a census basis for agencies those small agencies that do not currently receive agency data.
• For the first biennial SOS survey, the subset of “small” agencies receiving census–based data would be defined as those with between 100 and 400 employees.
  • These agencies would be consulted and their participation confirmed ahead of conducting the first biennial survey.
  • The Commission would also consult these agencies on the range of common questions to be used in the employee census/survey prior to fielding the survey.

Scenario B

Medium and larger agencies would also be invited to opt–in to the whole–of–government approach. For the purposes of the financial analysis in this business case, this scenario is labelled ‘Scenario B’.

Reference Group

A Reference Group would be established to review the various models of employee engagement and to seek a level of consensus on the key components. The group would also identify employee engagement questions that could be used in the Commission’s expanded SOS employee survey. This would provide the basis for benchmarking employee engagement across the APS.

Section 3: Consideration and selection of preferred option

Initial options

Initial, or preliminary, options were considered as part of the business case process before defining the proposal summarised in Section 2. The main preliminary option considered is detailed at Appendix 3.

In summary, the main preliminary option was for arrangements along the following lines:

• An annual ‘single’ employee survey across APS employees, comprising:
  • Part (1)— common questions
  • Part (2)—SOS–specific elements
  • Part (3)—agency–specific questions.
• Agencies could use the data from Part (1) to supplant their own internal survey, and could opt–in by adding a Part (3) for questions not covered by the common element.
  • At a minimum, agencies would continue to participate in Parts (1) & (2)⁶.
• The Commission would lead Parts (1) & (2) of the survey and contract a provider to administer the survey, and collate and distribute the data to the Commission and participating agencies in accordance with an agreed protocol.
• Agencies would individually be responsible for whatever Part (3) survey they undertook, although they would have an option of conducting this simultaneously with Parts (1) & (2). Providers would need to collaborate.
• Part (1) would be conducted as a census.
• Part (2) could be conducted as a stratified sample or a census.

Analysis of initial option

The initial option outlined above was taken to a feasibility–testing stage. The option was circulated to a selection of agencies, representing a range of sizes in terms of employee numbers and business type. These agencies then participated in a series of consultation workshops to test the option in concept and to give views on whether it could be implemented in practice.

The report of the workshops is at Appendix 4.

Advantages

The general consensus of agencies was that the concept of harmonisation was attractive. It could generate advantages including:

• cost effectiveness across the APS, through reducing duplication of effort
• generation of consistent data, enabling transparent benchmarking of agency results
• the potential to supply agency data from the SOS survey to the medium and small agencies currently excluded from that service
• the use of common metrics adding to a greater understanding across the APS of common objectives
• the ability to leverage the significant existing expertise around the APS in survey design, collection and analysis
• the creation of a network among agencies in this field.

Disadvantages and practical challenges

The disadvantages and practical challenges identified with the option as initially formulated were many. Significant barriers were:

Deterrents to agencies opting-in

• There was a sense that if agencies were to opt to use the Commission SOS data (common survey element Part (1)) to supplant a portion of their own surveying, they would need to be convinced that
  • access to the data would be timely
  • privacy of data could be assured
  • data would be detailed enough to enable analysis down to work unit level.
• Some agencies could be deterred by a fear of benchmarking.
  • If not a ‘fear’ as such, the use of the data for benchmarking agencies could alter the nature of the data collected. The risk was that the data sought through the survey might be styled to paint the best picture of agency performance and therefore be less meaningful as a management research tool.
• Establishment and transitional costs could be high.
  • Agencies were not convinced that there would be administrative savings in the initial year or years of the new arrangements.
    • Staff would need to be trained in the new approach and new ‘language’ of the survey.
    • Agencies were wary of entering a process of consultation and negotiation of the common questions. If, after significant consultative effort, an agency found that the common element of the survey was not going to serve its purposes, then the cost of the new approach would actually be higher than at present.
    • Agencies would have to be convinced that the governance arrangements for the transition and the operation of the new system were watertight before embarking on the change.
• Significant elements of agencies’ current costs would be unchanged.
  • Agencies with response rates currently above that achieved by the SOS survey would not accept any decline in response rate. In this case, agencies would need to maintain the same level of resources for marketing their surveys as now.
  • Agencies still required the ability to collect qualitative data, which is costly to analyse.
  • Some agencies still required a small proportion of collection of data through hard copy due to remoteness of staff.
  • Those agencies opting to conduct an agency–specific (Part (3)) survey element would still bear procurement and contract management costs.
• Agencies would lose a large degree of control over the common element of the survey (Part (1)).
  • Some agencies were concerned that the survey could be devalued within their organisations if it were not owned by the agency.
  • The common element of the survey could become too generic, that is, not sufficiently tailored for an agency’s objectives. In this case, there would be little change to current business practice, as the agency would need to rely on its agency–specific element (Part (3)).
  • There were costs, with uncertain outcomes, to the negotiation of the content of Part (1) of the survey, as mentioned above.
  • Some agencies indicated that centralised, consistent analysis of the survey data was necessary for the new approach to have integrity. Other agencies were concerned about this loss of control.

Impact on respondents

• The potential size of the employee survey was a concern, particularly if agencies conducted all of parts (1)–(3).
  • The SOS employee survey currently takes around 54 minutes to complete. Agency–based surveys take up to 30 minutes to complete (based on data collected for this business case). Note that there is some degree of duplicative time in these figures.
  • Increasing the impost on respondents would be costly in terms of total APS employee resources.
    • It would almost certainly result in reduced response rates, reducing the quality of the overall data.
• Redesigning a smaller sized survey would be an option. While this work would incur a cost, it would be expected to be offset by savings in time among respondents.
  • The real risk would be not achieving agreement among participating agencies on total survey content within the smaller envelope.

Procurement issues

• The initial option assumed that individual agencies would contract their own providers for the Part (3) elements of the survey. These providers would be required to collaborate with the Commission’s provider who would be designing the ‘front end’ to the survey data collection (basic identifier data).
  • Some agencies doubted whether this would work smoothly in practice. It could add to the provider cost.
• The alternative would be for the Commission to contract a single provider for all agencies participating in Parts (1)–(3) of the survey.
  • This would increase the contract management costs for the Commission, but might also save a level of cost among agencies. However, agencies would still bear costs in working with the provider on the design of their respective Part (3) of the survey.
  • There could be some industry repercussions from displaced providers.
  • The Commission would be able to negotiate with the collective market power of the many agencies involved in the procurement. However, the arrangement could also risk the creation of barriers to entry in time due to entrenchment of a large supplier.

Other

Two other problematic, but not insurmountable, concerns among agencies were:

• Timing—agreeing a time in the calendar year suitable to all agencies’ and the SOSR’s work patterns to conduct the ‘single’ survey.
• Time series data—moving to a new basis of data collection would reduce the ability to use previous historical data for analytical purposes.

Summary assessment

In summary, there was a consensus that the notion of harmonising employee survey arrangements among APS agencies was a good one. However, the practical challenges of the initial proposal were too great to take it to the next stage of the decision process.

Revised proposal

As a consequence, the Commission revised the proposal. The revised proposal is the subject of this business case and is described in Section 2.

The revised proposal holds the following advantages:

• The small agencies would benefit:
  • Data collected through the development of this business case indicates that these agencies are likely to be incur a high average cost for administering their employee surveys (up to 11 times the average cost that the large agencies bear for their surveys); or else are under–surveyed (30 per cent do not conduct surveys).
  • Running a census would provide the depth of data to enable agency–specific reports to be developed for 32 agencies that do not currently receive agency–specific reports. Under the current stratified sampling arrangement, agency data is available to 45 of the 73 agencies surveyed (ie those with 400 APS employees or more, as well as the Commission). Of the 32 agencies that do not get agency data from the Commission, 8 do not run their own employee surveys.
  • There is a strong likelihood that the small agencies would require data from the common element of the survey only. That is, they would not require agency–specific survey elements as well. This would be an efficient result, assuring savings for these agencies.
• Frequency of the SOS employee survey would be reduced to every second year. This would
  • address concerns that 12 months is not long enough to see any real change in the employee engagement trends – it can take managers from 12 to 18 months to turn things around
  • allow the Commission to redirect resources to the use of targeted pulse surveys and/or qualitative methodologies to gauge views on specific issues in the alternate years
  • allow resultant savings to be used to offset the cost of extending the survey as a census to the small agencies
  • reduce survey “fatigue” among respondents around the APS.
• Implementation is made simpler.
  • The approach of extending an employee census to small agencies first would make the transition to harmonised arrangements more manageable and therefore achievable.
  • There would be fewer agencies with which to agree on survey content.
• Larger agencies have time to consider.
  • The larger agencies would have the chance to see the harmonised approach operate in practice. This could help to give them the desired assurances for choosing to opt–in to the arrangement in future years.

Section 4: Financial analysis

Overview

In summary, the analysis in this section indicates that there are potential ongoing savings, both in terms of administrative costs and costs to respondents, under the proposal.

The financial analysis provided here is indicative only. It provides estimates for the APS as a whole⁷ of:

• the average annual cost⁸ to agencies, including the Commission, of administering the present
• system of employee surveys, that is, individual agency–based surveys as well as the employee
• survey conducted by the Commission for the SOSR
• the average annual cost⁹ of response, in terms of the value of respondents’ time, associated with the present system of employee surveys
• the average annual cost to agencies, including the Commission, of administering new employee survey arrangements under the proposal.

Qualitative benefits of the proposal (such as the generation of potential benchmarking data) have not been quantified. The financial analysis in this business case hinges on a comparison of

• the relative costs to the Australian Government of agencies, including the Commission, of administering employee surveys under the present system against that under proposed arrangements
• the relative cost to respondents under the present system and that under proposed arrangements.

The costs represent the indicative costs of the current and proposed systems in operation. They do not take into account any up front establishment or implementation costs of changed arrangements.

The indicative costs relate to the conduct of employee surveys in isolation, that is, the costs do not represent the budgetary position of any agency, including the Commission.

Method

Cost estimates for this financial analysis were based on data received from a selected sample of agencies and from the Commission. Agencies were asked to supply information according to a standard spreadsheet (at Appendix 5). Guidelines were attached to the spreadsheet to help ensure consistency of data results.

The cost estimates were analysed and the information extrapolated to produce indicative cost estimates for the APS as a whole. Assumptions made in the construction of cost estimates are further detailed in Appendix 5.

The financial analysis was also assisted by base data collected by the Commission as to which agencies conducted individual employee surveys and the frequency of those surveys.

Data constraints

The collection of data was dependent upon the availability of agencies to participate. With this constraint, it was nevertheless possible to achieve a spread of agencies of relevant sizes—see Table 1 below.

Table 1: Summary of agency data sample

Size	Definition (number of employees) 10	Number of agencies in this category which presently conduct own employee surveys	Number of agencies in this category in data sample	Proportion of this category represented in agency data sample
Small	100 to 400	24	7	29%
Medium	400 to 7000	29	9	31%
Large	>20000	3	3	100%
Total		56	19

Agencies were asked to complete a spreadsheet of information which was designed to capture a consistent estimate of the current costs of administering their employee surveys. As the supply of data was dependent upon agency cooperation within the time available to prepare this business case, it was not possible to correct comprehensively for inconsistencies in data results. Obvious inconsistencies were queried. However, responses from agencies were not always forthcoming in the time available.

In particular, agencies’ in–house costs (as opposed to costs of provider input) data received was reliant upon agencies’ own estimates of the resources applied to administration of their surveys. In the main, these figures were based on a broad estimation of direct staff input, as data on the actual in–house resource input had not been recorded over time.

It is possible that the in–house cost figures also represent a different interpretation among agencies of staff “on–costs” and hence may not be consistently based. Where it was clearly apparent that on–costs had not been included, and agencies were not forthcoming with data corrections in the time available, the in–house figures were arbitrarily adjusted by a factor of 1.5 per cent¹¹ to account for direct staff on–costs¹². It is possible that some agencies omitted on–costs and this was not apparent. In this case, the current costs of conducting the employee surveys will have been underestimated in this analysis.

Agency provider costs, while more easily identifiable for agencies, were not necessarily consistent as some agencies purchased a greater level of service (ie more functions) through their providers than others.

As data from 100 per cent of the large agencies was available within the sample, the cost estimates for administering the large agency surveys was taken as the sum of costs provided. For all other agencies, the sample data was used to extrapolate the cost to all agencies involved. This was based on an assumed survey response rate of 70 per cent. If the balance of agencies currently achieve response rates above this level, then the cost estimate provided in this report will underestimate actual costs.

As mentioned above, the Commission compiled basic information on agency surveys to assist with the financial analysis. This covered, amongst other things, the number of agencies which currently undertake surveys and the frequency of those surveys. The financial analysis was constrained also by limited data—not all agencies provided information to this report in the time available.

Outcomes

Costs of current business

Tables 2 and 3 below summarise the indicative costs to the APS as a whole of conducting the present system of employee surveys. This data indicates that itcosts the Australia Government an annual average of approximately $4.8 million to administer employee surveys. In addition, the employee response to these surveys costs the Australian Government an annual average of approximately $1.8 million.

Costs of proposal

Scenario A

Tables 4 and 5 below summarise the indicative costs to the APS as a whole of conducting employee surveys under Scenario A of the proposal. That is, conduct of the SOS employee survey biennially, with the inclusion of a census of small agencies (employee size 100–400). It was assumed under Scenario A, that the medium and large agencies would continue to conduct individual employee surveys on the same basis as at present. It was also assumed that the small agencies that would receive a census survey under the SOS survey, would no longer conduct individual agency surveys.

Table 2: Indicative annual cost to the APS of administering the current system of employee surveys, 2009–10 prices

Cost component	Number of respondents	Total annual cost $’000
(a) Number of respondents for the 2009 annual survey. (b) Estimated total pool of respondents for agency–own surveys, all survey frequencies. (c) Indicates estimate of total number of APS employees currently surveyed by their agencies, assuming a rate of response of 70%. A proportion of these employees are surveyed less frequently than annually. However, estimated cost is an average annual cost.
Cost to APSC of administering SOS employee survey	6,100 (a)	628
Cost to agencies of administering own employee surveys	91624(b)	4,134
Total		4,763

 

Table 3: Indicative annual cost to the APS of employee responses under the current system of employee surveys, 2009-10 prices

Cost component	Number of respondents	Total annual cost $’000
(a) Number of respondents in the 2009 annual survey. (b) Estimated total pool of respondents for agency–own surveys, all survey frequencies.
Cost of employee time spent responding to APSC SOS employee survey	6,100(a)	307
Cost of employee time spent responding to individual agency employee surveys	91624 (b)	1466
Total		1,773

The number of respondents to the SOS employee survey under Scenario A was estimated at 11,200. The cost for administering the SOS employee survey, including the census of small agencies, assumed

• no change to the in–house resource input from the Commission
• same marginal cost for data collection by the Commission provider.

The average time for response to the SOS employee survey under this scenario was assumed to be 30 minutes.

Under proposal Scenario A, administration of employee surveys—SOS survey and individual agency surveys—would cost the Australian Government an annual average of approximately $4.2 million. In addition, the employee response to employee surveys under Scenario A would cost the Australian Government an annual average of approximately $1.6 million.

Importantly, the cost of the employee response to the surveys assumed a shorter SOS employee survey (30 minutes rather than 54 minutes). The overwhelming majority of agencies’ own surveys were 30 minutes or less. If the SOS employee survey were to remain of the same length, the cost of the employees’ response under Scenario A would rise to around $1.7 million per annum.

The average annual cost of the employee response to the surveys under Scenario A also takes into account that the SOS employee survey would be occurring only every second year.

As mentioned above, this represents the indicative cost of the system in operation. It does not take into account any up front establishment or implementation costs.

Table 4: Indicative annual cost to the APS of administering proposal Scenario A, 2009-10 prices

Cost component	Number of respondents	Total annual cost $’000
(a) Number of respondents in survey year of biennial survey. Costs are average annual costs. (b) Estimated number of respondents for agency–own surveys, all survey frequencies, assuming a rate of response of 70%.
Cost to APSC of administering SOS employee survey	11,200(a)	431
Cost to agencies of individually administering employee surveys	88181(b)	3,807
Total		4,238

 

Table 5: Indicative annual cost to the APS of employee responses under proposal Scenario A, 2009-10 prices

Cost component	Number of respondents	Total annual cost $’000
(a) Number of respondents in survey year of biennial survey. Costs are average annual costs. (b) Estimated number of respondents for agency-own surveys, all survey frequencies, assuming a rate of response of 70%.
Cost of employee time spent responding to APSC SOS employee survey	11,200(a)	157
Cost of employee time spent responding to individual agency-based employee surveys	88181(b)	1,429
Total		1,586

Scenario B

Tables 6 and 7 below summarise the indicative costs to the APS as a whole of conducting employee surveys under Scenario B of the proposal. That is, conduct of the SOS employee survey biennially, with the inclusion of a census of all small agencies (employee size 100–400) and some medium or larger sized agencies.

The number of medium or larger sized agencies that might opt in to this system is unknown. For illustrative purposes, it was assumed below that an additional 10,000 employees might be included under a Scenario B proposal. Assuming a response rate of 70 per cent, this would raise the number of respondents by 7000.

Under Scenario B, it was assumed that the medium and large agencies not included in the SOS census survey would continue to conduct individual employee surveys on the same basis as at present. It was also assumed that those small and medium sized agencies that would be included in the SOS census, would no longer conduct individual agency surveys.

Under proposal Scenario B, administration of employee surveys—SOS survey and individual agency surveys—could cost the Australian Government an annual average of approximately $3.8 million.

In addition, the employee response to employee surveys under Scenario B could cost the Australian Government an annual average of approximately $1.6 million. This again assumes a SOS employee survey of 30 minutes in length. A SOS employee survey of current size would mean the total annual cost of response to employee surveys would rise to $1.8 million, that is, equivalent with estimates for the current system of employee surveys.

Scenario B illustrates that the greater the pool of respondents, that is, the greater the number of agencies that opt in to the proposed new survey arrangements, the greater the level of potential savings to the Australian Government as a whole. This assumes that agencies would substitute the SOS employee survey for their own individual surveys. If agencies continued to conduct individual employee surveys in the off–survey year, then savings would be diminished.

There is a marginal cost to the Commission of additional survey respondents. That is, the costs to the Commission would rise with greater extension of the SOS survey. However, the Commission annual costs on average should still be less than at present due to the shift to a biennial survey.

Table 6: Indicative annual cost to the APS of administering proposal Scenario B, 2009-10 prices

Cost component	Number of respondents	Total annual cost $’000
(a) Number of respondents in survey year of biennial survey. Costs are average annual costs. (b) Estimated number of respondents for agency–own surveys, all survey frequencies, assuming a rate of response of 70%.
Cost to APSC of administering SOS employee survey	18,200(a)	446
Cost to agencies of individually administering employee surveys	81,181(b)	3,310
Total		3,756

 

Table 7: Indicative annual cost to the APS of employee responses under proposal Scenario B, 2009-10 prices

Cost component	Number of respondents	Total annual cost $’000
(a) Number of respondents in survey year of biennial survey. Costs are average annual costs. (b) Estimated number of respondents for agency-own surveys, all survey frequencies, assuming a rate of response of 70%.
Cost of employee time spent responding to APSC SOS employee survey	18,200(a)	255
Cost of employee time spent responding to individual agency-based employee surveys	81,181 (b)	1,333
Total		1,588

Funding considerations

The analysis of costs above does not represent the budgetary position of the Commission or any other agency. It is an indication of the volume of savings that might be available to the APS as a whole if employee survey arrangements were changed along the lines of the proposal in this business case.

Savings could arise to the Commission from the reduction in frequency of the SOS employee survey from annual to biennial. The potential savings to the Commission would be reduced, the greater the pool of respondents involved in the expanded SOS employee survey (driven by the number of participant agencies).

Savings would also arise to those agencies that would discontinue their own employee surveys in favour of the biennial census available through the SOS employee survey.

No judgment is made about the allocation of resultant savings within any agency.

Section 5: Implementation issues

A full implementation plan would need to be developed by the Commission if this proposal is approved. At this point, a number of preliminary implementation issues are raised.

Consultation with potential participating agencies

There has been a good indication from consultations to date that smaller agencies would be attracted to participating in the proposed new arrangements. However, the Commission would need to consult more broadly to ascertain the level of interest and any undiscovered factors that may inhibit implementation.

Development of the implementation plan would need to be collaborative. The Commission may wish to consider an interdepartmental working party or reference group to assist with the development of the plan.

Timing

One of the issues that would need to be agreed by participating agencies would be the timing of the survey. There was some consensus around February–March in the consultation workshops. This may be a useful point of reference in further discussions and would need to consider the SOSR timeline.

Governance arrangements

Governance arrangements will need to be very clearly defined and communicated well before implementation. As a whole–of–government initiative, the many players would risk inefficiency and confusion if governance and procedural arrangements are left unclear.

Induction & training

Implementation would need to take account of the training/procedural briefing requirements for management staff in participating agencies.

Communication strategy

The new survey arrangements—objectives and procedures—would need to be communicated clearly to participating agencies and employees. The presentation of information would need to be tailored for these respective groups, for example, participant employees would need to know that the data collected would be used not only for SOS reporting, but internal management advice as well.

Common questions

A process of consultation by the Commission with participant agencies on the questions in the common element of the survey would be beneficial. This would provide feedback on the usefulness of the survey content to the agencies’ individual purposes.

Tailoring to agency data needs

One of the factors in the survey design discussions with participant agencies would be the required breakdown levels of the data, for example, agencies may need to be able to analyse the results down to work unit level, or for locational variations.

Data access

Participating agencies may wish to have access to the raw survey data as well as a results report. This may need to be accommodated in the implementation plan, particularly noting embargoed conditions of SOSR data before November each year.

Data security (confidentiality and privacy)

Agencies would require assurances that survey data collected on their behalf by the Commission would be treated confidentially and relevant privacy considerations would be observed. This would need to be built into implementation arrangements.

Impost on respondents

With the extension of the SOS survey to a greater number of respondents, the impost on respondents needs to be kept to a minimum. The cost estimate of the new arrangements is predicated on a 30 minute survey. Full potential savings would not be realised if the survey size exceeds this. Balancing the size of the survey would also increase the likelihood of good response rates. Survey design factors, including number and clarity of questions, and a reduced number of comment boxes, are pertinent in this respect.

Evaluation

It would be good practice to establish in the implementation plan a review point, or points, for the operation of the new survey arrangements. The results would be used to improve the operation of the system.

Section 6: Risks

A number of significant risks to the establishment and/or operation of the proposed new survey arrangements are identified below. A preliminary assessment of likelihood and impact is also presented. These risks would need to be addressed during the development of the implementation plan.

Risk	Likelihood(a)	Impact(b)	Comments	Preliminary mitigation strategy
(a) Likelihood rankings: Very likely|Likely|Possible|Unlikely (b) Impact rankings: Severe|High|Moderate|Low
1. Fewer than expected number of agencies will be interested in participating in the proposed arrangements	Possible	Low	The proposed arrangements could still be advantageous to a smaller number of agencies. Introducing a successful arrangement will help attract more agencies’ interest over time. Benefits to the Commission would still be yielded (ability for more in-depth data analysis etc.)	Proposal will still result in net benefits, although reduced. Interest from agencies most likely to be maximised by design of SOS employee survey addressing their needs.
2. Participating agencies will not agree on common questions in a timely manner	Likely	Moderate-High	Governance of this negotiation process will need to be tight and clearly understood by all parties. Could lead to risk no. 3 eventuating.	Deadlines and guidance from Secretaries’ Board and its committees. Establishment of clear governance, with responsibility for final decision resting with the Commission.
3. Participating agencies will not find the common survey data serves their full purposes.	Possible	Moderate	Participating agencies would need to conduct separate, individual surveys for the residual data, or, alternatively, there would be a loss of data to that agency. Anticipated cost savings would be diminished.	Ongoing communication between APSC and agencies.
4. Provider costs will be greater than estimated	Possible	Moderate	Anticipated cost savings would be diminished.	Rigorous tendering process. Two step tendering to obtain cost estimates if required.
5. The Commission will not have the required capacity or capability to implement	Possible	High	Capacity and capability needs to be carefully assessed and planned ahead of implementation.	Recruitment of employees with appropriate skills and experience.
6. Anticipated cost savings will not result or proposed arrangements are more costly than current business.	Unlikely	Moderate- High	The impact would depend on the magnitude of the loss in savings or increased cost. The benefits of the proposed arrangements are unquantified, but do have value.	Monitoring of costs, establishment of defined cost centre for the activity

Appendix 1: Consultation

Agencies involved in development of initial proposal

• Department of Defence
• Office of Parliamentary Council
• Department of the Treasury
• Murray Darling Basin Authority
• Department of Human Services
• Australian Bureau of Statistics

Agencies consulted in feasibility testing of initial proposal

• Aboriginal Hostels Limited
• Administrative Appeals Tribunal
• Attorney General’s Department
• Australian Trade Commission
• Australian Bureau of Statistics
• Australian Communications and Media Authority
• Australian Electoral Commission
• Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
• Australian Taxation Office
• Commonwealth Ombudsman
• Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service Australia
• Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry
• Department of Employment Education & Workplace Relations
• Department of Environment Water Heritage & Arts
• Department of Family Housing Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
• Department of Health and Ageing
• Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
• Department of Immigration and Citizenship
• Department of Innovation Industry Science and Technology
• Department of the Treasury
• Department of Veterans Affairs
• National Archives of Australia
• National Film & Sound Archive

Appendix 2: Agencies within scope of the proposal

• Aboriginal Hostels Limited
• Administrative Appeals Tribunal
• Attorney General's Department
• Australian Trade Commission
• Australian Agency for International Development
• Australian Bureau of Statistics
• Australian Communications and Media Authority
• Australian Consumer and Competition Commission
• Australian Crime Commission
• Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
• Australian Electoral Commission
• Australian Fisheries Management Authority
• Australian National Audit Office
• Australian National Maritime Museum
• Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
• Australian Public Service Commission
• Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Authority
• Australian Securities and Investments Commission
• Australian Taxation Office
• Australian Transaction Reports Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)
• Australian War Memorial
• Bureau of Meteorology
• Centrelink
• Commonwealth Ombudsman
• Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service Australia
• ComSuper
• Crim Trac Agency
• Defence Housing Australia
• National Archives of Australia
• Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
• Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
• Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
• Department of Defence
• Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
• Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts
• Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
• Department of Finance and Deregulation
• Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
• Department of Health and Ageing
• Department of Human Services
• Department of Immigration and Citizenship
• Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
• Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
• Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
• Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism
• Department of the Treasury
• Department Veteran's Affairs
• Fair Work Australia
• Fair Work Ombudsman
• Family Court of Australia
• Federal Court of Australia
• Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
• Food Standards Australia New Zealand
• Geoscience Australia

Appendix 3: Initial option for harmonised survey arrangements

Employee surveys could be conducted annually across APS agencies, coordinated in such a way as to appear as a single survey.

The ‘single’, coordinated survey would comprise up to three parts:

• Part (1)—a common element containing an agreed APS–wide set of questions on employee engagement (for the dual purposes of agencies and the SOSR).
• Part (2)—the Commission’s APS–wide set of questions measuring other aspects to be reported under the SOSR (including embedding a values–based framework).
• Part (3)—an agency–specific set of questions.

Agencies could opt–in to having a Part (3) agency–specific set of questions joined with Parts (1) and (2) to create a coincident, but seamless, employee survey.

The Commission would lead Parts (1) and (2). Responsibilities would include:

• designing content for Part (1), in consultation with those agencies choosing to use this segment for their own purposes as well
• designing content for Part (2)
• tendering and contract management for survey provider
• archival responsibility for the output
• analysis of data for the production of SOSR and subsequent uses
• provision of Part (1) tabulated data results to agencies.

Part (1) of the survey could be conducted as a census of all employees. This would mean that agency specific results would be available for all APS agencies, including the medium and smaller agencies. (Currently only the larger agencies (with 400 employees or more) have sufficient numbers of respondents to enable agency specific results to be provided).

• To be most cost–effective, this would mean an online survey, with either no text box responses or else agreement from agencies that text box responses be provided with the raw content for analysis within their own resources.

Part (2) could be conducted as a stratified sample or a census, depending on the cost–effectiveness.

As Parts (1) and (2) of the survey would constitute collection of information for the SOSR, agencies would need to participate in these elements under s44 of the Australian Public Service Act.

• However, it would be an agency’s choice to use Part (1) of the survey for its own purposes and therefore participate in the design of the Part (1) content.

Agencies would be responsible for Part (3) of the survey, covering any additional elements they chose. Agencies would be responsible for

• Part (3) content design
• securing of external provider, as needs, and contract management
• determination of the sample size
• storage, analysis and use of the resultant data.

Part (3) would need to be conducted simultaneously with Parts (1) and (2) in order to ‘piggyback’ the collection of common data from participants (for example, workplace, work level, work classification etc).

• This would need to be taken into account in the work specification for external providers.

Distribution of costs and savings:

• Savings are expected to arise to agencies from the new arrangements, particularly from the reduction in costs of survey design.
• Savings could be applied to the additional cost of conducting a census for the Part (1) element of the survey and reporting individual survey results for all APS agencies.

Appendix 4: Report of agency consultation workshops

Background

Two workshops were held by the Commission on 16 July 2010 to discuss options for harmonising APS employee surveys. The workshops particularly discussed the advantages, disadvantages and feasibility of the proposal at Appendix 3. The following agencies participated in the workshops:

• Aboriginal Hostels Association Department of Employment Education & Workplace Relations
• Administrative Appeals Tribunal Department of Environment Water Heritage & Arts
• Attorney General’s Department
• Department of Family Housing Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
• Austrade
• Department of Health and Ageing
• Australian Bureau of Statistics
• Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
• Australian Communications and Media Authority
• Department of Immigration and Citizenship
• Australian Electoral Commission
• Department of Innovation Industry Science and Technology
• Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
• Department of the Treasury
• Australian Taxation Office
• Department of Veterans Affairs
• Commonwealth Ombudsman
• National Archives of Australia
• Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service
• National Film & Sound Archive
• Department of Agriculture Forestry & Fisheries

The purpose of the workshop was to engage agency participants in testing the feasibility of the option at Appendix 3. Agencies were asked to contribute to further development of the concept and practicalities of implementation. They were not asked to represent the policy positions of their agencies on any of the options under discussion.

Outcomes

The following advantages, disadvantages and practical challenges were identified by the workshops:

Advantages

• Harmonisation could be cost effective across the APS, through reducing duplication of effort.
• Generation of consistent data could enable benchmarking of agency results.
• If SOSR became a census then agency results would also be available to the smaller agencies (currently only available to the larger agencies).
• Use of common metrics could add to a greater understanding across the APS of common objectives.
• Time series data could be created on whole of government trends.
• Small agencies could be included, enhancing the notion of one APS.
• Response rates to surveys might be increased.
• The significant expertise around the APS in survey design, collection and analysis existing could be leveraged.
• Creating a network among agencies in this field could help, amongst other things, with addressing common issues.

Disadvantages

Reduction in agency control over process, outcomes and data generated

• Limitations of a one–size–fits–all model; could be “too generic”, that is, possible reduction in the level of tailoring of survey instruments to agency needs.
• Would the desired level of detail be able to be achieved, for example, demographic and geographical detail for those agencies dispersed around the country?
• How long would it take to get the data back to agencies? Possibility of time–blowouts in obtaining the data given size of the overall task.
• Privacy and confidentiality concerns would need to be addressed. Who would have access to agency–based data?
• Agencies may lack access to the raw data.
• Value placed on survey within agencies may be diminished if agencies don’t own the process.

Analysis of data

• Who would conduct the analysis to ensure consistency?

Fear of benchmarking

• Agencies may be reluctant to participate in case they are shown in a bad light.
• Survey could become a ‘whitewash’ and hence agencies lose access to necessary data for addressing internal management issues

Cost

• New arrangements could be more costly than current practice.
• Establishment and transitional costs could be high, including, for example, education of operational staff, and introduction to new language and concepts within survey instrument.

Impact on respondents

• May lengthen the size of the survey and increase the impost on respondents.
• Possibility of lowering survey response rates.
• Could lead to survey fatigue, especially among agencies that conduct surveys less frequently than annually.

Other issues

• Could be less effective than the status quo.
• Possible loss of agency historical data and ability to undertake comparisons over time.
• Employees other than APS employees within an agency would be excluded (for example, Austrade).
• Who would the provider be for the common elements of the survey?

Practical challenges

The following factors were identified as

• challenges to putting the option for harmonised arrangements into practice, or
• necessary conditions for the option to be acceptable to agencies.

Cost/savings

• Any changed arrangements would need to cost less than the current individualised approach as there was general sentiment that the benefits would not outweigh additional cost. For self–funded/revenue earning agencies, any change to arrangements would need to be able to pay for themselves.
• Establishment costs are unlikely to be budget neutral and so the new arrangements might need to yield offsetting savings in subsequent years. Significant establishment cost foreseen in training survey management employees within agencies to understand new processes as well as new language and concepts underpinning survey content.

Governance

• Moving to a new approach would be complicated and the various roles of participant agencies would need to be very clearly defined under a new system, especially in the transition years.
• Governance arrangements would need to be clearly worked out, issues such as agreeing the content of the common questions could become protracted without clear governance lines. On the other hand, if the control by the central party, the Commission, is too great over the common questions, this may deter agencies opting in to the arrangement.

Timing and frequency

• Finding a time in the year to conduct a common survey that suits all agencies: there was a degree of consensus in one of the workshops that Feb–Mar may be an agreeable period in the calendar year.
• For some agencies, an annual survey would be too frequent and threaten response rates.

Tailoring for agency needs

• The level of disaggregation of questioning would need to be high to cater for agencies’ internal management concerns, meaning that it would need to be at least down to work unit level; also catering for the locational and demographic make up of some agencies.
• The data collected would need to enable current benchmarking processes to be continued, for example, some agencies use industry benchmarks for similar service provision.
• There may be interdependencies between questions in the common questions element (Part (1)) and those in the agency–specific element (Part (3)) which could be lost in splitting the survey.
• Provision would need to be made for collection of qualitative data.
• For some agencies, provision would need to be made for collection of data in hard copy. This would reduce potential savings.
• For some agencies, non–APS employees would need to be included. However, the SOSR survey covers APS employees only.
• Agencies currently adjust data for internal organisational changes to create valid time series data for comparisons over time. This is an onerous task at present. Would it be possible under a common arrangement across the APS?

What would be the common questions?

• Some agencies would like Part (1) of the survey (common questions) to include issues beyond employee engagement. Could this be agreed among all participant agencies?

Procurement issues

• Providers for Parts (1)–(2) of the survey (contracted to the Commission) would have to be able to work harmoniously with the potentially many providers contracted to various agencies for the Part (3) elements, that is, the agency–specific surveys.

Data access and analysis

• For some agencies, the analysis of the results from the common questions would preferably be centralised so as to be consistent among agencies; others wished to retain control over the analysis.
• What data would agencies receive? Options included customised reporting by a provider, conducted for a fee; agencies could receive a complete of de–identified data for their agency for Part (1) and (3) with trend data for Part (2). Some agencies, including smaller agencies, were concerned about their capacity or capability to handle the raw data and preferred analysis by a provider.
• Agencies would need to have timely access to the results.
  • Participation by respondents diminishes if results are not available within 3 months
  • Loss of control of this part of the process for the common questions element of the survey is a risk to participating agencies.
  • The Commission may need to address the embargo arrangements on SOSR data, which may be difficult or impossible.
• If the new system were conducted with a single provider, there may be repercussions in the provider industry.
• Many agencies currently use their providers to conduct detailed presentations of their survey results, such as down to work unit level. Would this be feasible from Part (1) with a single provider?
• Agencies are variously committed to current multi–year contracts with providers. This would affect the phasing in of new arrangements.

Respondents and response rates

• The composite survey could not be so long as to impose an unreasonable cost on respondents and deter the response rates.
• For some agencies, response rates lower than current would not be acceptable. This was a particular problem for agencies with response rates well above the 64% achieved by the SOS employee survey in 2009.
• Maintaining high response rates would require agencies to be just as pro–active in their internal marketing efforts as now and so a combined survey would not yield savings in this aspect.
• If Parts (1) and (3) were conducted as a census and Part (2) conducted as a stratified sample, confusion might be created among respondents within the same agency and work areas.
• Privacy of respondents would need to be protected, including identification by workplace unit.

Other

• There would have to be a strong communication strategy across the APS, about how the survey works and its purpose.
• Intellectual Property rights over the data and survey instruments would need to be retained by the Commonwealth.

General sentiment

• The general sentiment among workshop participants could be summarised as
  • supportive of the concept of a harmonised approach to employee surveys, but
  • wary of the practical challenges presented by the option at Appendix 3.
• Generally, smaller agencies could see greater advantage in the approach than the larger agencies.

Appendix 5: Key assumptions in financial analysis

Key assumptions underpinning cost calculations

Scenario

Costs of conducting employee surveys under current arrangements

Key assumptions

• Cost estimates capture agencies with employee numbers greater than 100.
• Cost of administering SOS employee survey taken at cost provided by the Commission.
• Cost of administering individual employee surveys by the three largest agencies taken at cost provided those agencies.
• Cost of administering individual employee surveys by medium sized agencies based on extrapolation of average costs from data provided by sample of agencies. Survey response rates assumed at 70%.
• Cost of administering individual employee surveys by small agencies based on extrapolation of average costs from data provided by sample of agencies. Survey response rates assumed at 70%.
• Cost of time spent on employee response to individual agency surveys based on average cost for agencies in the data sample.
• Cost of employee response to SOS employee survey based on average staff cost from agencies in data sample as a whole of APS average staff cost was not available.

Scenario

Proposal Scenario A

Key assumptions

• Cost estimates capture agencies with employee numbers greater than 100.
• All small agencies with employee numbers 100-400 participate in the census element of the SOS employee survey, whether they currently survey their employees or not. This would raise respondent population by an additional 7000. Total respondent population would rise to 16,000, and, at a 70% response rate (below), total respondent numbers would be 11,200.
• The Commission does not require additional s to administer the proposed new arrangements.
• Medium and large agencies continue to conduct individual employee surveys on the same basis as at present.
• Small agencies that receive a census survey under the SOS survey no longer conduct individual agency surveys
• Response rate for SOS employee survey of 70%.
• SOS employee survey takes an average of 30 minutes to complete.

Scenario

Proposal Scenario B

Key assumptions

• Cost estimates capture agencies with employee numbers greater than 100.
• All small agencies with employee numbers 100-400 participate in the census element of the SOS employee survey. The participation by some medium increases the survey population by 10,000 over Scenario A, bringing the number of respondents to 18,200.
• The Commission does not require additional staff to administer the proposed new arrangements.
• Medium and large agencies not participating in the SOS employee survey census element continue to conduct individual employee surveys on the same basis as at present.
• Those agencies participating in the SOS employee survey census element no longer conduct individual agency surveys.
• Response rate for SOS employee survey of 70%.
• SOS employee survey takes an average of 30 minutes to complete.

Collection of data from APSC and agencies in data sample: template spreadsheet

APS Employee surveys –Harmonised approach: Cost estimates of current business

AGENCY: enter name

AGENCY SIZE (no. employees)

 

Column1 FUNCTION (a)	In-house resources Staff input p/a (FTE)	In-house cost avg p/a	Provider cost avg p/a	Totals avg p/a
Notes (a) Please provide costs per annum for these functions. If any functions are performed less frequently than annually, for example, biennially, please provide the average per annum cost. This is to enable comparisons with different options. (b) Survey design covers the range of functions from the determination of employee survey objectives, setting of themes and question categories, including internal clearance with senior management; design of the actual questions, the survey form and production of the electronic and paper forms ready for input from respondents. Functions might be performed through a combination of in–house and provider resources. (c) Survey conduct–covers the marketing of the survey to potential respondents; the cost attributed to the capture of electronic data, cost associated with the entry of manually collected data into the database. It does not include the cost to respondents of completing the survey. There is provision for this cost outside the main spreadsheet. Functions might be performed through a combination of in–house and provider resources. (d) Managing the data –refers to the functions of compiling and analysing the raw data against reportable categories, tabulating and producing reports against the data for internal and/or external clients, presenting the data results in various ways, such as to senior management, to broader staff; preparing any publications based on the data; storing the raw data and results. Functions might be performed through a combination of in–house and provider resources. (e) Procurement –refers to all in–house–performed functions associated with contracting and managing a survey provider.
Survey design(b)
Determine survey content
Design & production survey form
Sub total
Survey conduct(c)
Survey marketing
Data collection
Sub total
Managing the data(d)
Data compilation/synthesis
Survey outcomes report(s)/presentation(s)
Prep of publication(s)
Data storage
Sub total
Procurement(e)
RFT, selection, appointment of provider
Contract management
Sub total
TOTAL

Additional information

Cost to respondents	Units
*that is, the average p/a figure used by your agency for staff costings purposes **that is, time cost in $ based on average ASL cost ***that is, per capita cost by total no. respondents
Avg time per capita to complete survey	hours
No. of respondents in 2009	number
Total time taken to complete survey	hours
Avg ASL cost p/a*	2009-10 $
Estimated per capita cost of response**	2009-10 $
Estimated total cost of response***	2009–10 $

 

Provider contracts	Units
Duration of provider contract	no. years
Expiry date of current provider contract