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.
Sample questions
A preview of what’s in the template. Every question is editable before you launch.
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
How clear is the end-to-end contract workflow in your organization today?
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
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
Rank the following improvements by their potential to increase contract workflow transparency or speed. (Place the most impactful at the top.)
- Greater status visibility / dashboard
- Clearer and enforced SLAs
- Higher-quality intake (forms, required fields)
- Template and playbook standardization
- Automated reminders and escalations
- Additional resourcing or coverage
- Self-service for low-risk agreements
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?
Which function best describes your role?
- Sales
- Legal
- Procurement
- Finance
- Operations
- IT
- Other (please specify)
- Prefer not to say
Thank you for your time. Your input will directly inform improvements to contract workflows and processes.
Thinking about your contract requests in the past 6 months, how easy was it to see status updates?
Does your team use documented SLAs for contract turnaround times?
- Yes, for all standard requests
- Yes, for some request types
- No
- Not sure
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)
What is the single most impactful change that could be made to contract workflows this quarter?
Based on your responses in this survey, is there any additional context about contract workflow transparency or timelines you'd like to share?
What is your role level?
- Individual contributor
- Manager
- Director
- VP+
- Prefer not to say
Thinking of your most recent contract request, how well were timeline expectations set at kickoff?
When SLAs exist, how often were they met over the past 6 months?
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
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)
Where do you primarily work?
- On-site
- Hybrid
- Remote
- Prefer not to say
Which region do you primarily support?
- Americas
- EMEA
- APAC
- Multiple regions
- Prefer not to say
What’s included
AI follow-ups
Adaptive probes on open-ended answers that pull out detail a static form would miss.
Attention checks
Built-in safeguards against rushed answers and low-quality respondents.
AI-drafted copy
Wording, ordering, and branching written by the AI — tuned to your research goal.
Auto report
Themes, quotes, and a plain-English summary write themselves once responses come in.
How it compares
We reviewed the closest templates from other survey tools. Here’s what they do well — and where this template goes further.
Why this template
- 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 QuestionnaireThis 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.
What it does well
- 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
Where it falls short
- 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
Ready to launch?
Open this template in the editor. Every part is yours to change before the first respondent sees it.
Related templates
More studies from the same category.
Consent & Preference Center UX Evaluation
Evaluates how users discover, understand, and interact with cookie consent and preference-center interfaces. Use this survey to identify UX friction points, trust gaps, and feature priorities that affect compliance and conversion.
View templateGDPR Consent Copy & Preference Center Usability Study
A UX research instrument that evaluates clarity, trust, and usability of GDPR consent messages and privacy preference center controls through A/B stimulus comparison and behavioral preference measures.
View templateCompliance Training Effectiveness & Retention Survey
Evaluates clarity, engagement, knowledge retention, and on-the-job application of mandatory compliance training to help L&D and compliance teams identify content gaps and optimize delivery formats.
View templateResearch Interview Consent & Understanding Check
A pre-interview consent form that confirms participants understand what they're agreeing to — recording formats, how their words may be used, and their right to withdraw — plus an AI follow-up that catches confusion or hesitation before the real interview starts. Built for researchers running qualitative interviews, usability sessions, or customer discovery calls.
View templateBusiness Travel Data Consent & Comfort Survey
Assesses how well employees and business travelers understand, trust, and can withdraw consent for travel-related data collection like itinerary sharing, location tracking, and duty-of-care programs. Built for privacy, compliance, and travel program teams, with an AI follow-up that surfaces the real reasons behind any hesitation or discomfort.
View templateBackground Check Consent & Disclosure Experience Survey
Evaluates how clearly candidates or employees understood a background check disclosure and authorization request — including whether they felt informed, unrushed, and free to ask questions. An AI follow-up interview digs into the specific moment they hesitated or felt unclear, surfacing wording and process fixes that reduce compliance risk and candidate friction.
View template