모든 템플릿

Contract Workflow Efficiency & Visibility Assessment

Assesses internal stakeholders' experience with contract workflow visibility, SLA adherence, and cycle times to identify process bottlenecks and prioritize improvements.

샘플 질문

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

질문 21개 · 약 10분
Q01
메시지

Welcome to the Contract Workflow Assessment. This survey asks about your experience with contract workflows over the past 6 months—specifically visibility, timelines, and process efficiency. Your responses are confidential and will be reported only in aggregate to inform process improvements. Participation is voluntary, and you may exit at any time. There are no right or wrong answers; we want your honest perspective. Estimated time: 6–8 minutes.

Q02
객관식

Which best describes your involvement with contract workflows?

  • I negotiate contracts directly
  • I review, approve, or request contracts
  • I am not involved in contract workflows
Q03
의견 척도

How clear is the end-to-end contract workflow in your organization today?

척도: 17
최소:Not at all clear최대:Extremely clear
Q04
드롭다운

Approximately how many calendar days does a typical standard contract take from intake to signature?

  • 1–5 days
  • 6–10 days
  • 11–20 days
  • 21–30 days
  • 31–45 days
  • 46–60 days
  • More than 60 days
  • Not sure
Q05
객관식

In the past 6 months, at which workflow stages did you most frequently encounter delays? (Select all that apply.)

  • Intake / request submission
  • Initial review and triage
  • Drafting
  • Internal review and approval
  • Negotiation / redlining
  • Final approval
  • Execution / signature
  • None — I did not experience significant delays
Q06
순위 매기기

Rank the following improvements by their potential to increase contract workflow transparency or speed. (Place the most impactful at the top.)

  1. Greater status visibility / dashboard
  2. Clearer and enforced SLAs
  3. Higher-quality intake (forms, required fields)
  4. Template and playbook standardization
  5. Automated reminders and escalations
  6. Additional resourcing or coverage
  7. Self-service for low-risk agreements
드래그하여 순위 지정
Q07
AI 인터뷰

Thank you for your answers so far. I'd like to explore your contract workflow experiences in a bit more depth. Could you walk me through a recent situation where the contract process worked well or where it broke down?

Q08
객관식

Which function best describes your role?

  • Sales
  • Legal
  • Procurement
  • Finance
  • Operations
  • IT
  • Other (please specify)
  • Prefer not to say
Q09
메시지

Thank you for your time. Your input will directly inform improvements to contract workflows and processes.

Q10
의견 척도

Thinking about your contract requests in the past 6 months, how easy was it to see status updates?

척도: 17
최소:Very difficult최대:Very easy
Q11
객관식

Does your team use documented SLAs for contract turnaround times?

  • Yes, for all standard requests
  • Yes, for some request types
  • No
  • Not sure
Q12
객관식

What are the most common causes of contract delays you experienced in the past 6 months? (Select all that apply.)

  • Unclear or incomplete intake requirements
  • High volume of redlines
  • Waiting on internal approvers
  • Template or clause mismatches
  • Team capacity constraints
  • Tooling or system limitations
  • External counterparty delays
  • Competing priorities
  • Other (please specify)
Q13
장문형

What is the single most impactful change that could be made to contract workflows this quarter?

Q14
장문형

Based on your responses in this survey, is there any additional context about contract workflow transparency or timelines you'd like to share?

Q15
객관식

What is your role level?

  • Individual contributor
  • Manager
  • Director
  • VP+
  • Prefer not to say
Q16
의견 척도

Thinking of your most recent contract request, how well were timeline expectations set at kickoff?

척도: 17
최소:Not at all well최대:Extremely well
Q17
의견 척도

When SLAs exist, how often were they met over the past 6 months?

척도: 17
최소:Rarely met최대:Almost always met
Q18
드롭다운

How long have you worked at your organization?

  • Less than 1 year
  • 1–2 years
  • 3–5 years
  • 6–10 years
  • More than 10 years
  • Prefer not to say
Q19
객관식

How do you currently track the status of your contract requests?

  • A system dashboard (e.g., CLM tool)
  • A shared tracker (e.g., spreadsheet)
  • Ad hoc updates (e.g., email, Slack)
  • I don't have a way to track status
  • Other (please specify)
Q20
객관식

Where do you primarily work?

  • On-site
  • Hybrid
  • Remote
  • Prefer not to say
Q21
객관식

Which region do you primarily support?

  • Americas
  • EMEA
  • APAC
  • Multiple regions
  • Prefer not to say

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

  • Pairs quantitative opinion-scale questions (workflow clarity, ease of initiating requests, SLA adherence) with a ranking exercise and open-text prompts to both measure and explain bottlenecks.
  • Includes an AI follow-up interview segment that adaptively probes deeper into a respondent's specific contract workflow experience after the structured questions.
  • Captures function, role level, tenure, work location, and region so results can be segmented by stakeholder type rather than treated as one aggregate score.
  • Uses targeted multiple-choice questions on workflow stage and delay causes to help pinpoint where in the process bottlenecks actually occur, not just that they exist.

SurveySparrow

Internal Audit Risk Assessment Questionnaire

This is a fielding-ready internal assessment questionnaire aimed at the same type of internal-stakeholder audience, but its content is built around audit and risk controls rather than contract workflow, SLA adherence, or cycle-time visibility. It's the closest structural analog among available competitors (an internal process-assessment survey) rather than a topic match.

잘하는 점

  • Purpose-built internal assessment questionnaire format aimed at employee/stakeholder respondents
  • SurveySparrow's conversational survey UI is known to support multi-channel distribution
  • Ready to deploy as-is for a related internal-assessment use case

아쉬운 점

  • Static question set with no adaptive AI follow-up probing into individual risk or process answers
  • No automated per-response quality scoring or transparent AI prompt methodology
  • Content is oriented to audit/risk controls, not contract-specific workflow stages, SLAs, or cycle times

설문을 공개할 준비가 되셨나요?

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