Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
28 APPENDIX B Interview Questionnaire Name: __________________________________________________________________ Title: ___________________________________________________________________ Organization: ____________________________________________________________ Phone and E-mail: _________________________________________________________ Peer Review Discussed (Location, Date, and Host Agency): ________________________ Role in Peer Review: _______________________________________________________ Peer Review Docs to Share: _________________________________________________ Determining the need for a peer review 1. What were the basic goals of the peer review? What program, project, process or procedure needed to be addressed? 2. How did the peer review fit into your [or the host agencyâs] development or improvement process? Was it on the front end (to provide guidance) or on the back end (to confirm the approach taken)? Do you think the timing of the peer review was effective? 3. How were the peer review needs and goals communicated to participants and to sponsors? What could have been improved? Selecting the right peer review agenda and format 4. What was the basic format of the peer review? Did participants travel to the host agency location to share information? Or did representatives from the host/lead agency travel to one or more peer locations? 5. How long did the peer review last? 6. How was the agenda structured (presentations, discussions, interviews, field trips, report to management)? 7. Was the peer review just one component of a larger conference/meeting or a stand-alone event? 8. Did you find the format effective? What worked well? What could have been improved? Involving the right people (planning team and participants) 9. Who was involved in planning the peer review (staff, consultants, managers)? What expertise did they bring to the team? What expertise, if any, do you think was missing from the planning team? 10. How many external participants attended or participated in the peer review? What expertise did they provide? What expertise, if any, do you think was missing? 11. Did you [or the host agency] use any contractors to assist with planning or logistics? 12. Did some participants only attend part of the event or participate in a portion of the process? 13. Was the peer review open to any interested participants or by invitation only? 14. Did the peer review use a designated facilitator? If so, what was the facilitatorâs role? Was the individual a member of the planning team, a member of the visiting team, or someone invited only for the purposes of providing facilitation?
29 Handling the expenses 15. How much did it cost to host [or participate in] the peer review? What key costs did you budget for? 16. Who paid for the peer review expenses? What costs were covered (travel and/or time, host agency and visiting participants)? 17. Did your actual costs exceed your estimated costs? Where do you think money could have been saved or should have been spent to improve the peer review process or outcomes? Handling the logistics 18. How long did the planning process take? What agency approvals were needed to move forward with the event? 19. Where was the event held? Where did participants stay (if lodging was needed)? What worked well or could be improved? 20. Who handled the logistics for the peer review (inviting participants, arranging travel plans, reserving meeting space and catering, handling travel reimbursements)? What worked well about this process or could be improved? If contractors were used, how were their services secured? 21. What materials did the host agency produce for the event (binders, name tags, handouts, signage, etc.)? Who was responsible for producing these materials? 22. What materials were most helpful? What materials do you wish you would have had? Reporting and applying the peer review results 23. Was a report or presentation developed to document the peer review process and/or the findings? If so, who developed it and when (in relation to the event)? 24. With whom were the results of the peer review shared? When were they shared, by whom and in what forum (i.e., staff briefing, board meetingâformal/informal, council meeting, etc.)? 25. What steps did you [or the host agency] take to apply the findings from the peer review? What difference did the peer review make? Did anyone document this? 26. If the peer review findings werenât applied, why not? What are the roadblocks? Benefits and lessons learned from the peer review process 27. Had you planned or participated in a peer review prior to this one? How did this peer review compare? 28. Did the host agency distribute an online or print evaluation of the peer review to participants? If so, what key feedback did you receive [or provide]? 29. What benefits did you [or the host agency] receive from participating in this peer review? 30. Are there any other lessons or effective practices youâd like to share related to peer reviews?
