Cross-Department Performance & Collaboration Review
Captures how internal stakeholders experience working with a specific department — responsiveness, quality, communication, and reliability — plus a trade-off exercise on what to fix first. An AI follow-up interview reconstructs a specific recent interaction behind the numbers so leaders get concrete, fixable detail instead of vague ratings.
샘플 질문
템플릿에 포함된 내용을 미리 확인해 보세요. 모든 질문은 설문 공개 전에 자유롭게 수정할 수 있습니다.
Which department are you evaluating in this survey?
- (Replace with Department A, e.g. IT)
- (Replace with Department B, e.g. Finance)
- (Replace with Department C, e.g. HR)
- (Replace with Department D, e.g. Marketing)
In the last 3 months, how often have you interacted with this department (requests, projects, meetings, etc.)?
- Not at all
- A few times total
- A few times a month
- Weekly
- Almost daily
Thinking about your recent experience, how would you rate this department on each of the following?
- Communication clarity
- Responsiveness to requests
- Quality of deliverables
- Reliability in meeting deadlines
- Collaboration across teams
How likely are you to recommend working with this department to another team or colleague?
Which of these matters most for this department to improve, and which matters least right now?
- Faster response times
- Higher quality of deliverables
- More proactive communication
- Better cost or budget management
- Stronger cross-team collaboration
- More consistent deadline delivery
- Deeper technical expertise
- Greater adaptability to change
Compared to 6 months ago, how has this department's performance changed?
- Improved a lot
- Improved somewhat
- Stayed about the same
- Declined somewhat
- Declined a lot
- Not sure / too new to say
Reconstruct the most recent specific interaction the respondent had with this department (a request, project, or handoff): what they needed, what actually happened, and what went well or fell short. Anchor closely on the reason behind their recommendation score and the trade-off item they picked as most important to improve. If they rated performance as declining, probe what changed and when; if it's their first real interaction, ask what would build confidence going forward.
Is there anything specific this department could start, stop, or keep doing to work better with your team?
Which department do you primarily work in?
- (Replace with Department A)
- (Replace with Department B)
- (Replace with Department C)
- (Replace with Department D)
- Prefer not to say
How long have you been at the organization?
- Less than 6 months
- 6 months to 2 years
- 2 to 5 years
- More than 5 years
- Prefer not to say
Thank you for the detailed feedback! Your responses will be compiled into a department performance report shared with team leads to guide concrete improvements.
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 static ratings with an AI follow-up interview that reconstructs the specific recent interaction behind a respondent's scores, giving leaders concrete, fixable detail instead of vague averages.
- Includes a trade-off exercise (max-diff) that forces respondents to prioritize what to fix first versus rating everything as equally important.
- Combines quantitative tracking (matrix ratings, recommend-likelihood, change-over-time question) with qualitative depth (open-ended start/stop/keep and the AI-reconstructed interaction) in one flow.
- Segments feedback by requester department, interaction frequency, and tenure, so results can be sliced by who is experiencing the friction and how often.
SurveyMonkey
Department Performance Survey TemplateA static, fielding-ready template built specifically for rating how stakeholders experience working with an internal department, making it the most directly comparable template found. It relies on fixed rating-scale and open-text questions rather than any adaptive interviewing. As with most SurveyMonkey templates, it's meant to be customized before use rather than run as-is.
잘하는 점
- Purpose-built for the same core use case: internal stakeholders rating a department's performance
- Backed by a large, well-known survey platform with broad distribution and reporting tooling
- Likely quick to deploy given SurveyMonkey's drag-and-drop template editor
아쉬운 점
- No adaptive AI follow-up interview to reconstruct the specific recent interaction behind a low or high score — respondents just leave ratings
- No built-in trade-off/prioritization exercise (like max-diff) to surface what to fix first versus what's merely nice-to-have
- No transparent, publishable interview prompts or automated per-response quality scoring — quality control is left to the researcher
설문을 공개할 준비가 되셨나요?
이 템플릿을 편집기에서 열어 보세요. 첫 응답자가 보기 전에 모든 부분을 원하는 대로 바꿀 수 있습니다.
관련 템플릿
같은 카테고리의 다른 설문을 만나 보세요.
Client Relationship Health Check Survey
Assesses how a key client or business partner perceives the strength of their working relationship with your team — covering trust, responsiveness, and communication — with an AI follow-up that digs into the specific moments behind their satisfaction score. Built for account managers, customer success teams, and partnership leads running periodic relationship health checks.
템플릿 보기미국 정치 지식 및 시민 교양 설문조사
미국 성인들이 기본적인 시민 교양과 현재 정부 구조 — 정부의 부처, 임기, 사법부 — 를 얼마나 잘 이해하고 있는지를 측정한 후, AI 후속 질문을 활용하여 지식 격차가 어디에서 비롯되는지, 그리고 사람들이 얼마나 자신 있게 정치 정보를 탐색하는지를 탐구합니다. 정부에 대한 대중의 이해도를 추적하는 연구자, 교육자, 시민 단체에 유용합니다.
템플릿 보기Leader Transparency and Trust at Work Survey
Measures how transparent employees perceive leadership to be — sharing bad news, explaining decisions, admitting mistakes — and how that shapes trust and psychological safety. Built for HR and leadership teams studying organizational transparency, with an AI follow-up that unpacks a specific real instance of a leader being (or not being) open.
템플릿 보기조교 효과성 평가 설문조사
강의, 실습, 또는 사무실 상담 시간에 걸쳐 조교의 명료성, 응답성, 공정성, 그리고 강의실에서의 존재감에 대한 학생 피드백을 수집합니다. 조교에게 가장 중요한 것이 무엇인지에 대한 최선-최악 상충 평가와, 각 학생의 전반적인 평가 뒤에 있는 구체적인 순간을 파고드는 AI 후속 질문을 포함하여, 학과가 실행에 옮길 수 있는 구체적인 강점과 개선 가능한 미비점을 드러냅니다.
템플릿 보기Childhood Trauma History and Present-Day Impact Survey
Screens for adverse childhood experiences and maps how they show up in adults' relationships, work, and daily wellbeing today. Built for therapists, researchers, and mental health programs running trauma-informed intake or research, with an AI follow-up that gently explores coping and resilience without pressuring anyone for details they'd rather not share.
템플릿 보기Reiki Session Intake & Client Intention Survey
A pre-session intake for reiki and energy healing practitioners that captures a client's physical and emotional state, comfort with touch, and health considerations before hands-on work begins. An AI follow-up interview digs into the client's stated intention so practitioners can tailor the session to what's really driving the visit, not just the surface request.
템플릿 보기