- We had a brief discussion about whether or not the frequency of the meetings (approx. every 2 weeks) was still useful. We also discussed whether or not to keep the meeting on the same day/time. Decision: keep meetings every two weeks and keep meetings at same date/time unless people start having trouble making the call (due to summer schedules).
- Several folks are going to see if their admin or IT groups have any sort of survey like this.
- Heather will look through review notes to see if there are common comments on form.
- Next week: report out from any remaining folks; move on to actual form.
We decided to have the people on the call talk about their experiences and observations when working with the exit survey document during their in-person interviews. Next meeting we'll finish these reports and then begin to go over the actual document. Notes below are from Heather - please feel free to edit or add to if I've made an error.
- Carol: Admin office has webpage for processing out folks (Pacific SC). Webpage from 2006; will be updating it after June closeout. IT and data management info is missing.
- John: Text form has a lot of redundancy. Their office already has property and IT forms in place. "Yes" was a good enough answer for many questions - need to make sure more information is collected than that. Form is too long. Question: If a hard drive is encrypted, who does the encryption key go to? Observation: we are assuming with this form that we have a good legacy to preserve. Need to change the term "non-standardized software" to "specialized."
- Ed: Person he interviewed agree to fill out form until he saw the length. Felt most people would not fill out due to length. Would take a long time to fill out form, although there is a big need for the information we're asking and capturing. Might want to have two versions: one that is filled out by the person, one for a person to be interviewed. Would take a couple of weeks to fill out. Would be good to have form filled out. Conclusion: exit survey not as effective when given at end of USGS career; better off giving this several times during career. If we had good data management, this form would be easy to fill out.
- Lori: Form is too long; start with baby steps. Interview format suggested for completing the form. Very daunting document. Hard to define what "data" is (in terms of how it's used in exit survey). Data sets are moving targets - need to have timestamps. Re: data management and DM plans - most folks haven't had a data management class; people need this in order to have knowledge about things like DM plans. Some of this information should be built into Basis+. Make it a requirement - part of performance appraisals. Problems/issues with backups - who's doing them? How do I do them?
- Tom: Draft a good start - hard to make it concise. Agree with a lot of what has already been said. DM education and perspective attitudes may be generational. Flow could be improved (see Tom's comments on .doc file). Hard to get away from IT perspective as data is linked to it. IT not shared across cost centers - some without IT support. It would be great to have a white board exercise for this effort. He thought about the Science DM Framework project he worked on while looking through this.
- Carol: Plans to take comments on the exit form so far and implement portions that are appropriate for her Center. Start with data questions - metadata is really complete with regards to current projects. Not going to ask about projects that haven't started yet. Primary questions will deal with electronic data; physical data has good catalog. Need to ask about any data sets that might be on loan.