Q01
メッセージ
すべてのテンプレートIndustry-Specific
360 Peer Evaluation & Working Relationship Survey
A structured peer-review template for 360-degree feedback cycles — covering core collaboration competencies, an overall effectiveness rating, and a best-worst prioritization of development areas — plus an AI follow-up interview that reconstructs the concrete incident behind the rating so feedback isn't just a number. Built for HR, people ops, and team leads running peer review cycles.
設問の例
テンプレートの内容をプレビューできます。すべての設問は公開前に自由に編集できます。
全13問・約7分
Q02
選択式必須
What is your working relationship with [peer's name]?
- I work on the same team as them
- I work with them across teams/departments
- They report to me
- I report to them
- Other
Q03
マトリクス必須
Based on your interactions in the last review period, how often has this person demonstrated the following?
5行 × 4列
- Communicates clearly and proactively
- Collaborates well with others on shared work
- Delivers reliable, high-quality output
- Takes initiative without being asked
- Handles disagreement or setbacks constructively
列: Rarely · Sometimes · Usually · Almost Always
Q04
オピニオンスケール必須
Overall, how effective has this person been in their role over the last review period?
スケール: 0 – 10
最小:Not effective at all最大:Extremely effective
Q05
選択式必須
In the last 3 months, how often did this person deliver agreed-upon work on time without needing reminders?
- Never
- Rarely
- Sometimes
- Often
- Always
- Not applicable — we haven't shared deadlines
Q06
ベスト・ワースト選択（MaxDiff）必須
If this person could focus on developing only one skill area next quarter, which would have the biggest impact — and which would matter least right now?
- Written and verbal communication
- Cross-team collaboration
- Time management and prioritization
- Technical or domain expertise
- Leadership and mentoring others
- Adaptability under changing priorities
- Strategic, big-picture thinking
各セットで最も良いもの・最も悪いものを選択最も良い:Would help most最も悪い:Would help least
Q07
自由回答（長文）
Describe one specific situation where this person performed especially well. What happened, and what was the outcome?
Q08
自由回答（長文）
Describe one specific situation where this person could have handled things better. What would you suggest they do differently?
Q09
選択式必須
Would you want to work with this person again on a future project?
- Yes, definitely
- Probably
- Unsure
- Probably not
- No
Q10
AIインタビュー
Probe the reasoning behind the overall effectiveness rating the respondent gave. Ask them to walk through the single most memorable interaction or project with this person that shaped that score, including what specifically happened and what the impact was. If the rating was low (0-5) or they said they wouldn't want to work with the person again, gently dig into whether this is a one-off incident or a recurring pattern, and what — if anything — would need to change. If the rating was high (9-10), ask what this person does that others on the team don't.
Q11
選択式
How long have you worked with this person?
- Less than 3 months
- 3-12 months
- 1-2 years
- More than 2 years
- Prefer not to say
Q12
選択式
Which best describes your own role level relative to this person?
- Peer / same level
- More senior
- More junior
- Different function, not comparable
- Prefer not to say
Q13
メッセージ
All done — thank you for the thoughtful feedback! Your responses will be combined with others' and shared with this person's manager as part of this review cycle, following your organization's feedback-sharing policy.
含まれる機能
AIによる深掘り
自由回答に合わせてAIが追加で質問し、固定のフォームでは拾えない具体的な内容を引き出します。
注意確認設問
急いだ回答や質の低い回答者を除外する仕組みを標準で備えています。
AIが作成する設問文
文言、設問の順序、条件分岐をAIが調査の目的に合わせて作成します。
自動レポート
回答が集まると、テーマ、引用、わかりやすい要約が自動で作成されます。
他ツールとの比較
ほかのアンケートツールで最も近いテンプレートを調べました。それぞれの優れている点と、このテンプレートがさらに踏み込んでいる点をまとめています。
このテンプレートを選ぶ理由
- Goes beyond a single peer-evaluation form by pairing structured competency ratings (matrix, opinion scale, on-time delivery) with a best-worst max-diff prioritization of development areas, so results are ranked, not just scored.
- Includes an AI follow-up interview that specifically probes the reasoning behind the overall effectiveness rating, reconstructing the concrete incident behind the number instead of leaving it as an unexplained score.
- Captures relationship context (working relationship, tenure, relative role level) alongside two open-ended critical-incident questions, giving reviewers structured qualitative evidence, not just ratings.
- Built specifically for HR/people-ops peer review cycles, with a closing message confirming responses will be combined into a report, rather than being a generic evaluation form repurposed for peer review.
Jotform
Create Free Peer Evaluation Forms - Peer Evaluation Form TemplatesA library of ready-to-use peer evaluation form templates aimed at general HR use, with drag-and-drop customization. It's a form-builder gallery rather than a single structured 360 instrument, so depth and consistency across templates likely vary. Good for quick deployment, less suited to standardized multi-rater review cycles.
優れている点
- Free to use and quick to customize with a drag-and-drop builder
- Wide variety of pre-built peer evaluation templates to choose from
- Easy integration into existing HR workflows via forms
物足りない点
- Static form fields only — no adaptive follow-up interview to probe the reasoning behind a rating
- No built-in mechanism to reconstruct specific incidents behind scores; relies on whatever open text fields are manually added
- No published methodology for how templates ensure comparability across raters in a formal 360 cycle
Typeform
Peer Evaluation Form TemplateA single conversational-style peer evaluation template with Typeform's signature one-question-at-a-time UX, which makes it pleasant to fill out. It's a fixed set of questions, though, without any structured prioritization mechanism (like best-worst ranking) or a way to dig deeper into a given answer. Suited to lightweight peer feedback rather than a full 360 cycle with development-area prioritization.
優れている点
- Polished, conversational one-question-at-a-time interface improves completion experience
- Simple to launch as a standalone peer feedback form
- Mobile-friendly design typical of Typeform templates
物足りない点
- No adaptive AI follow-up interview — every respondent sees the same fixed question set regardless of their answers
- No best-worst/max-diff style prioritization to force-rank development areas
- No automated quality scoring of open-ended responses or auto-generated synthesis report
よくあるご質問
「360 Peer Evaluation & Working Relationship Survey」テンプレートにはどのような設問が含まれていますか？
すぐに使える設問が13問含まれており、最初の設問は次のとおりです：「Thanks for taking part in this peer review cycle! Your responses help your colleague grow and are typically shared in ag…」・「What is your working relationship with [peer's name]?」・「Based on your interactions in the last review period, how often has this person demonstrated the following?」。すべての設問は上でプレビューでき、自由に編集できます。
このアンケートの回答にはどのくらい時間がかかりますか？
回答者は通常、13問を約7分で回答し終えます。
テンプレートは編集できますか？
はい。公開前であれば、すべての設問、選択肢、順序を編集できます。設問の追加や削除のほか、調査の目的に合わせた作り直しをAIエディターに依頼することもできます。
このテンプレートは無料で使えますか？
はい。エディターで開けば、すぐに編集を始められます。お試しにアカウントは不要で、無料プランでアンケートを公開できます。
公開の準備はできましたか？
このテンプレートをエディターで開いてみてください。最初の回答者が目にする前に、すべてを自由に変更できます。
関連テンプレート
似たテーマのほかの調査もご覧ください。