Following debate as to the direction of our Society at the 2008 AGM, a wide-ranging on line survey was issued to all members to obtain feedback. Thank you to all those members who took valuable time from busy schedules to complete the survey.
Following a review of that feedback by the Executive Committee, Nicholas Gould has now been able to confirm what that direction should be. It is simple, effective and most importantly, consensual.
Well over 100 replies were received by the deadline and a detailed analysis of all answers is available to any member upon request to our Honorary Secretary, Stephen Clarke.
The purpose of this article is to report, in general terms, the feedback received and the immediate actions put in place to ensure we act on the feedback and achieve the goals we have set ourselves.
If you did not receive the survey or failed to respond in time, your views are nonetheless welcome and any issues you may wish to raise should be directed to Stephen Clarke.
Asked if the Society provides value for money, over 99% of you confirmed it did. As a relatively small Society, relying entirely on the voluntary support of numerous individuals centrally and across the regions, this was a huge accolade. Some suggestions were made as to how the Society might improve its offer, which will be discussed below, but a 99% approval rating takes some beating.
We asked if the Society delivers on its constitutionally stated aim to deliver education to its members and 87% or respondents confirmed that it did. Suggestions for improvement closely mirrored those suggestions made in respect of enhancing value for money.
There was clearly a belief that surplus funds should be used to fund academic achievement with an annual prize for learned papers achieving 43.2% of the vote.
There was a large majority agreement that the Society should restrict its scope to construction adjudication, but 55% recognised a need to raise our profile, with many suggestions provided as to how we might do so. We seem relatively comfortable to restrict activity to domestic adjudication with 60% confirming that we should not do more to promote ourselves on an international stage.
Replies were received from across the full geographic spread of our membership and pleasingly 70% of those responding confirmed that they were satisfied that there region provides sufficient local events. That said, 30% of respondent’s did not agree and we must recognise that this proportion might in fact be significant, possibly even representative of our regional members outside of London. In fact 45% of those respondent’s that answered the question confirmed that in their view there were regions which are not adequately covered.
We asked if you were happy with the range of speakers and it seems we are an eclectic bunch, happy to receive the wisdom of a variety of presenters and in a variety of forms across a wide range of topics.
The matter of guidelines, codes of practice or training note appeared to split the membership. 42% believe we should consider publication of guidelines to members, whereas somewhat surprisingly perhaps 58% believe we should not. There appears some call to consider the prospect at some stage of becoming a nominating body, with 57% confirming their opinion that we should do so. Two thirds of you also believe we should be offering structured training and accreditation to Adjudicators.
It is huge testament to the efforts of Lucy Garret and Glenn Godfrey, both of whom have worked exceptionally hard over recent years, that your view as to the frequency and quality of our newsletter was close to a perfect ten. Lucy of course handed her editorial duties to William Webb a year ago and the newsletter seemingly continues to go from strength to strength.
The web site was seen to be sufficient in its present form. However, Ed Peters is not resting on his laurels and an updated site has of now been launched.
We asked if you thought we should align ourselves with other societies and the view was again quite split, with 47% of you confirming that we should. A number of suggested alliances were suggested, albeit on review it would seem that in many cases those connections are already evident, albeit perhaps informally at this stage.
Full and confidential details of the survey results are available to members upon application to Stephen Clarke.
In summary, the feedback was extremely positive and immensely practical. The Executive Committee have reviewed the results in detail and as Nicholas has advised, some immediate actions have been put in place already.
Thank you again for telling us how you want to shape our Society.
Liam Holder/Stephen Clarke
