1 / 9

Stakeholder Perceptions Survey for RTF

This document provides an update on the recommended approach and implementation plan for conducting a stakeholder perceptions survey for the RTF. It includes information on the survey purpose, sample, implementation, timing, and recommendations for staff involved. The appendix also provides a refresher on the RTF metrics and the PAC's role.

paulrsmith
Download Presentation

Stakeholder Perceptions Survey for RTF

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RTF PAC:Qualitative Survey April 17, 2013 Jim West, Snohomish Bruce Folsom, Avista Lauren gage, BPA

  2. Update • Last RTF PAC meeting • Discussed options for survey design and implementation. PAC requested subcommittee meet and discuss recommended approach. • Subcommittee update • Jim West, Bruce Folsom, Lisa Hunnewell and Lauren Gage met twice • Group discussed that PAC must decide on survey • i.e., we are not strongly advocating a survey is done – looking to PAC for this direction • Given this direction, we developed a recommended approach

  3. Purpose • Stakeholder Perceptions Survey • Recommendation: Conduct a survey similar to NEEA stakeholder perceptions (but shorter). Purpose is to gauge region’s perspective on the RTF. • Survey would be diagnostic/pulse-taking/baseline survey. Allows for more effort to be expended in future if/where needs are found in the survey. • Alternative: Large undertaking similar to NEET process with in-person interviewing, etc. • This large of an effort does not seem necessary at this time, but is a possibility in future if needed.

  4. Survey Sample • RTF Inner Circle • Recommend: Survey sample includes all RTF PAC and RTF voting members and corresponding members. • This would include ~80 informed stakeholders with wide perspective on RTF activities (utilities, consultants, regulators, public members). • Alternative: Wide distribution to all identified stakeholders (e.g., EE staff, more policy/public input) • Development of a representative list is problematic; knowledge of recent RTF changes may be limited. Could be a possible expansion effort in the future.

  5. Implementation • Internal implementation • Recommend: Developing, programming and analyzing survey with “voluntold” staff at various organizations • Instrument development: research staff from regional organizations (e.g., Snohomish, BPA, Avista, ETO, NEEA, RTF staff) . Instrument review: West and Folsom. • Need a strong instrument developed by group that balances representative input, skilled survey designers and number of people providing input. Recommend leveraging the NEEA stakeholder survey. • Survey programming and implementation - Snohomish • Communication – Recommend RTF staff (e.g., Aggar) with signature from Karier and West • Analysis – Snohomish to run basic reports; bring researchers back together to develop simple presentation for PAC. Review: West and Folsom. • Alternative: Hire consultants to conduct the research project • Seems appropriate for a larger effort.

  6. Timing • Fall 2013 • Recommend: Implementing survey September or later • Stakeholders: time to review RTF annual report; avoids NEEA strategic planning process • Implementers: time for calm development of survey • Alternative: wait until 2014 • May be too late for baseline survey • Post-survey efforts • Presentation to PAC • Decide as committee what action, if any, should be taken based on the results. • Presentation to Council

  7. Questions for PAC • Does the PAC want to direct staff to conduct this survey? • If so, does the PAC agree with the recommended approach • Purpose? • Sample? • Implementation? • Recommendations for process and staff involved • Timing?

  8. Appendix

  9. Refresher: RTF Metrics (Subjective in blue) • PAC Metrics and the subjective • PAC #1: Engaging stakeholders to identify regional priorities to recommend to the Council and foster the appropriate use and acceptance of data and outputsfrom the RTF; • PAC #2: Securing the resources necessary to perform the technical work requiredby the region; • PAC #3: Reviewing the progress of the RTF toward fulfilling those priorities recommended by stakeholders and the RTF Advisory Committee that have been established by the Council; and, • PAC #4: Providing consensus recommendations to the Council on policy-related matters on how best to meet the mutual needs of the RTF’s stakeholders.

More Related