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.
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.
How much impact did this incident have on customer experience or revenue?
How would you rate the timeliness of incident communications you received?
Compared with before the incident, how would you describe your current level of trust in the affected system or process?
Rank the following areas by how much improvement they need for incidents like this one. Place the highest-priority area at the top.
- Early detection speed
- Update cadence during response
- External/customer communication clarity
- Decision-making and alignment
- Ownership and role clarity
- Tooling/visibility (dashboards, alerts)
Where are you primarily based?
- North America
- Europe
- Asia Pacific
- Latin America
- Middle East/Africa
- Other
- Prefer not to say
Thank you for your time. Your feedback will directly inform improvements to our incident response and recovery processes.
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
How much impact did this incident have on internal team productivity?
How would you rate the accuracy of incident communications you received?
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
If you could change one thing to reduce business impact next time, what would it be?
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
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
How much impact did this incident have on team morale or confidence?
How would you rate the clarity of incident communications you received?
How would you rate the quality of post-incident follow-up (e.g., post-mortem review, action items, assigned owners)?
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.
What is your current job level?
- Individual contributor
- People manager
- Director
- VP/C-level
- Other
- Prefer not to say
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
How much impact did this incident have on SLA compliance or contractual obligations?
How would you rate the completeness of incident communications you received?
Based on your responses in this survey, is there anything else you would like to share about this incident or the recovery process?
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
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
Which single channel did you rely on most for incident updates?
- 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
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
Overall, how useful were the incident communications in enabling you to do your job?
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 TemplateThis 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 questionsA 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 FormThis 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.