모든 템플릿

Post-Incident Trust & Communication Assessment

Measures incident impact, communication effectiveness, and trust recovery across stakeholder roles. Designed for internal post-incident reviews to identify systemic improvement priorities.

샘플 질문

템플릿에 포함된 내용을 미리 확인해 보세요. 모든 질문은 설문 공개 전에 자유롭게 수정할 수 있습니다.

질문 29개 · 약 12분
Q01
메시지

Welcome! This survey asks about one specific incident from the last 90 days. Your participation is voluntary and you may stop at any time. There are no right or wrong answers — we want your honest perspective. All responses are confidential and will be reported only in aggregate to improve incident response practices. The survey takes approximately 13 minutes to complete.

Q02
메시지

Please think about the single most recent incident that affected your team or work in the last 90 days. All of the following questions refer to that specific incident.

Q03
의견 척도

How much impact did this incident have on customer experience or revenue?

척도: 17
최소:No impact at all최대:Extreme impact
Q04
의견 척도

How would you rate the timeliness of incident communications you received?

척도: 17
최소:Very poor최대:Excellent
Q05
의견 척도

Compared with before the incident, how would you describe your current level of trust in the affected system or process?

척도: 17
최소:Much lower than before최대:Much higher than before
Q06
순위 매기기

Rank the following areas by how much improvement they need for incidents like this one. Place the highest-priority area at the top.

  1. Early detection speed
  2. Update cadence during response
  3. External/customer communication clarity
  4. Decision-making and alignment
  5. Ownership and role clarity
  6. Tooling/visibility (dashboards, alerts)
드래그하여 순위 지정
Q07
객관식

Where are you primarily based?

  • North America
  • Europe
  • Asia Pacific
  • Latin America
  • Middle East/Africa
  • Other
  • Prefer not to say
Q08
메시지

Thank you for your time. Your feedback will directly inform improvements to our incident response and recovery processes.

Q09
객관식

What was your primary stakeholder role during that incident?

  • Engineering (dev/infra/SRE)
  • Product management
  • Customer support/success
  • Sales or account management
  • Marketing/PR
  • Operations/IT
  • Security/compliance
  • Executive/leadership
  • Other
Q10
의견 척도

How much impact did this incident have on internal team productivity?

척도: 17
최소:No impact at all최대:Extreme impact
Q11
의견 척도

How would you rate the accuracy of incident communications you received?

척도: 17
최소:Very poor최대:Excellent
Q12
객관식

How long did it take until you were comfortable resuming normal operations?

  • Immediately after mitigation
  • Within the same day
  • 1–3 days
  • 4–7 days
  • More than a week
  • Still not fully comfortable
Q13
장문형

If you could change one thing to reduce business impact next time, what would it be?

Q14
객관식

What is your organization's approximate size?

  • 1–49 employees
  • 50–249 employees
  • 250–999 employees
  • 1,000–4,999 employees
  • 5,000+ employees
  • Prefer not to say
Q15
객관식

How directly were you involved in managing the incident?

  • Primary responder/on-call
  • Contributor or subject-matter expert
  • Informed stakeholder/observer
  • Affected but not involved in response
Q16
의견 척도

How much impact did this incident have on team morale or confidence?

척도: 17
최소:No impact at all최대:Extreme impact
Q17
의견 척도

How would you rate the clarity of incident communications you received?

척도: 17
최소:Very poor최대:Excellent
Q18
의견 척도

How would you rate the quality of post-incident follow-up (e.g., post-mortem review, action items, assigned owners)?

척도: 17
최소:Very poor최대:Excellent
Q19
AI 인터뷰

We'd like to explore your incident experience in a bit more depth. An AI moderator will ask you a couple of follow-up questions based on your earlier responses.

Q20
객관식

What is your current job level?

  • Individual contributor
  • People manager
  • Director
  • VP/C-level
  • Other
  • Prefer not to say
Q21
드롭다운

What was the business severity level assigned to that incident?

  • Sev-1 (critical, widespread impact)
  • Sev-2 (high, significant impact)
  • Sev-3 (moderate, limited impact)
  • Sev-4 (low, minor impact)
  • Not sure
Q22
의견 척도

How much impact did this incident have on SLA compliance or contractual obligations?

척도: 17
최소:No impact at all최대:Extreme impact
Q23
의견 척도

How would you rate the completeness of incident communications you received?

척도: 17
최소:Very poor최대:Excellent
Q24
장문형

Based on your responses in this survey, is there anything else you would like to share about this incident or the recovery process?

Q25
객관식

How long have you been with your current organization?

  • 0–6 months
  • 7–12 months
  • 1–2 years
  • 3–5 years
  • 6+ years
  • Prefer not to say
Q26
객관식

Approximately how long was customer-visible impact present?

  • Under 30 minutes
  • 30–59 minutes
  • 1–3 hours
  • 3–12 hours
  • 12–24 hours
  • More than 24 hours
  • Not sure or not customer-visible
Q27
객관식

Which single channel did you rely on most for incident updates?

  • Email
  • Chat (e.g., Slack/Teams)
  • Status page or incident tool
  • Pager/on-call app notifications
  • Live briefings/meetings
  • Ticketing system (e.g., Jira/ServiceNow)
  • Other
Q28
드롭다운

Approximately how many separate incidents affected your work area in the last 90 days?

  • 1
  • 2–3
  • 4–6
  • 7–10
  • More than 10
  • Not sure
Q29
의견 척도

Overall, how useful were the incident communications in enabling you to do your job?

척도: 17
최소:Not at all useful최대:Extremely useful

포함된 기능

  • AI 후속 질문

    정형화된 설문이 놓치는 세부 내용을, 주관식 답변에 맞춰 AI가 심층 질문으로 끌어냅니다.

  • 주의력 확인 장치

    성의 없는 답변과 저품질 응답자를 걸러내는 내장 안전장치입니다.

  • AI가 작성한 문안

    문구, 질문 순서, 분기 로직까지 AI가 연구 목표에 맞춰 작성합니다.

  • 자동 리포트

    응답이 모이면 주요 주제, 인용문, 이해하기 쉬운 요약이 자동으로 작성됩니다.

다른 서비스와 비교

다른 설문 도구의 가장 유사한 템플릿을 검토했습니다. 그 도구들이 잘하는 점과, 이 템플릿이 한발 더 나아가는 지점을 정리했습니다.

이 템플릿을 선택하는 이유

  • Focuses on one specific recent incident (not communication in general), capturing severity, duration, and impact on customer experience, productivity, morale, and SLA compliance in a single structured flow
  • Breaks communication effectiveness into distinct dimensions (timeliness, accuracy, clarity, completeness) plus channel reliance, rather than a single generic rating
  • Includes trust-recovery-specific measures (current trust level vs. before the incident, time to resume normal operations, post-mortem quality) that generic communication surveys don't cover
  • Adds an AI follow-up interview to probe open-ended answers like the ranked improvement areas and the 'what would you change' response, plus a closing open-text question, giving depth static forms can't reach

SurveySparrow

Communication Skills Assessment Questionnaire Template

This is a general employee communication skills questionnaire, not an incident-specific trust or impact assessment. It's a ready-to-field template but covers competency/style rather than post-incident recovery dynamics. Useful for periodic communication reviews rather than event-driven incident debriefs.

잘하는 점

  • Ready-to-use fielding template aimed at employee communication skills
  • Likely includes standard rating-scale questions for quick deployment
  • Positioned within a broader employee-experience template library

아쉬운 점

  • No incident-specific framing (severity, duration, customer impact) evident in the title/purpose
  • Static question set with no adaptive AI follow-up to probe individual answers
  • No published methodology for how scores or quality are derived

QuestionPro

Company Communication Survey | Communication survey questions

A general company communications evaluation template, useful for broad internal comms health checks but not built around a specific incident or trust-recovery timeline. It reads as a standard survey template rather than an incident post-mortem tool. Good for recurring comms pulse checks, not systemic incident-review reporting.

잘하는 점

  • Established survey platform with a dedicated communication-survey template
  • Likely covers multiple facets of internal communication broadly
  • Part of a larger library of survey templates for easy customization

아쉬운 점

  • No apparent incident-severity, duration, or stakeholder-role segmentation
  • Fixed-question format; no adaptive AI or voice interview follow-up
  • No transparent scoring/prompt methodology published on the page

Typeform

Communication Style Survey Form

This template assesses individual communication style/preferences rather than organizational post-incident communication effectiveness or trust recovery. It's a conversational-style form good for engagement, but not designed for incident review or stakeholder-role comparison. Best viewed as a personality/style survey, not an incident assessment.

잘하는 점

  • Clean, conversational form format typical of Typeform templates
  • Good for capturing individual communication-style preferences
  • Easy to customize for general workplace communication topics

아쉬운 점

  • No incident, severity, or trust-recovery focus in scope
  • No adaptive AI or voice-based follow-up interviews
  • No automated quality scoring or auto-generated report described

설문을 공개할 준비가 되셨나요?

이 템플릿을 편집기에서 열어 보세요. 첫 응답자가 보기 전에 모든 부분을 원하는 대로 바꿀 수 있습니다.