Q01
메시지
모든 템플릿
Parts Request & Fulfillment Experience Survey
Measures how easily technicians, mechanics, and maintenance staff can request, track, and receive the right parts — covering speed, accuracy, availability communication, and channel preference. An AI follow-up interview reconstructs the most recent problematic request to pinpoint exactly where the process breaks down. Built for parts suppliers, distributors, and internal procurement teams.
샘플 질문
템플릿에 포함된 내용을 미리 확인해 보세요. 모든 질문은 설문 공개 전에 자유롭게 수정할 수 있습니다.
질문 13개 · 약 7분
Q02
객관식필수
In the last 30 days, how many times have you submitted a parts request?
- None
- 1-3 times
- 4-9 times
- 10 or more times
Q03
객관식필수
Which channel do you use most often to request parts?
- Online portal or app
- Phone call
- In person at counter
- Text message or chat
Q04
의견 척도필수
How easy is it to submit a parts request and get confirmation it was received?
척도: 1 – 7
최소:Very difficult최대:Very easy
Q05
의견 척도필수
Thinking about your most recent order, how accurately did what arrived match what you requested?
척도: 1 – 7
최소:Not accurate at all최대:Completely accurate
Q06
매트릭스필수
How much do you agree with each statement about your parts requests over the last few months?
5개 행 × 5개 열
- I can easily tell what's in stock before I order
- I get timely updates when a part is delayed or backordered
- The parts I receive match the part numbers I requested
- Packaging and labeling make it easy to confirm what I received
- Staff or support reps are knowledgeable when I have questions
열: Strongly disagree · Disagree · Neutral · Agree · Strongly agree
Q07
최선·최악 선택형(MaxDiff)필수
When requesting parts, which factors matter most to you and which matter least?
- Speed of delivery
- Accuracy of the order
- Price transparency
- Clear communication about delays
- Real-time stock availability info
- Ease of placing the order
- Quality of packaging and labeling
세트별 최선·최악 선택최선:Matters most최악:Matters least
Q08
의견 척도필수
How likely are you to recommend this parts request process to a colleague at another site?
척도: 0 – 10
최소:Not at all likely최대:Extremely likely
Q09
AI 인터뷰
Reconstruct the respondent's most recent parts request that didn't go smoothly: what part they needed, how they submitted the request, where the breakdown happened (wrong part, delay, no stock, poor communication), and what they had to do to work around it. If they say every recent request went fine, probe what would make an already-good process even faster or more reliable, and anchor on a specific example rather than a general impression.
Q10
장문형
Is there anything about the parts request process — ordering, tracking, or receiving — you'd like to see changed?
Q11
객관식
Which best describes your role?
- Technician / Mechanic
- Maintenance staff
- Procurement / Purchasing
- Shop or site manager
- Other
- Prefer not to say
Q12
객관식
How long have you been requesting parts through this process?
- Less than 6 months
- 6 months to 2 years
- 2 to 5 years
- More than 5 years
- Prefer not to say
Q13
메시지
Thank you for your feedback! We're using these responses to identify where delays and part mismatches happen most, so we can fix the process for everyone who relies on it.
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
- Goes beyond a single order-accuracy rating with a full flow covering channel preference, submission ease, accuracy, and likelihood to recommend, plus a matrix of agreement statements for a fuller picture over the past 30 days
- Uses an AI follow-up interview to reconstruct the respondent's most recent problematic parts request, pinpointing exactly where the process broke down rather than relying on a single open-text box
- Includes a max-diff exercise to rank what factors (speed, accuracy, availability info, etc.) matter most vs least to requesters, giving prioritization data static forms don't capture
- Segments by role and tenure (how long they've used the process) so procurement teams can see whether pain points differ by technician experience level or job function
Jotform
Parts Request Form TemplateThis is a fillable form for submitting a parts request (item, quantity, urgency, etc.), not a survey measuring the experience of the request process itself. It's built for capturing a single transaction, not for gathering feedback on speed, accuracy, or channel preference across multiple past requests. Useful as an intake form but not comparable as an experience-measurement instrument.
잘하는 점
- Quick to deploy as a standard order-intake form
- Familiar drag-and-drop Jotform builder for customizing fields
- Can integrate with other Jotform workflow/automation tools
아쉬운 점
- No mechanism to probe why a specific past request went wrong — it's a submission form, not a feedback survey
- No adaptive or AI-driven follow-up; fields are static and fixed at design time
- No built-in scoring, prioritization (e.g., max-diff), or automated reporting on requester experience
SurveySparrow
Parts Request Form TemplateFramed as an order form for submitting parts requests rather than a survey diagnosing where the request-and-fulfillment process breaks down. SurveySparrow's conversational format may make submission smoother, but the template itself is transactional, not evaluative of speed, accuracy, or channel preference.
잘하는 점
- Conversational, chat-style UI can make form completion feel less tedious
- Mobile-friendly presentation typical of SurveySparrow forms
- Easy to customize fields for different parts-ordering scenarios
아쉬운 점
- No adaptive AI interview to reconstruct a specific problematic past request
- No published methodology on how questions are scored or weighted
- Lacks trade-off analysis (e.g., max-diff) to reveal which fulfillment factors matter most to requesters
설문을 공개할 준비가 되셨나요?
이 템플릿을 편집기에서 열어 보세요. 첫 응답자가 보기 전에 모든 부분을 원하는 대로 바꿀 수 있습니다.