Survey programme overview — FY2026–2027 (mid-contract snapshot)
Quantitative and qualitative analysis of 30 internal and external stakeholder surveys (2,589 responses) across the 2026–2029 engagement programme. Satisfaction and sentiment have both improved year-on-year; waiting time at large external events remains the main drag. Figures are illustrative sample data.
Satisfaction climbed to 4.12/5 by '27 Q4
Weighted average satisfaction by quarter — the trajectory GIPF would see in every reporting cycle.
Responses by stakeholder audience
Internal staff surveys vs external member / public surveys.
Overall sentiment — all open-text responses
Recommended actions — findings & recommendations
The interpretation layer GIPF receives within 10 working days of each survey batch (per the TOR deliverable).
Quantitative results
Rating-scale questions (1 = poor, 5 = excellent) across all analysed surveys, weighted by response volume. Staff helpfulness scores highest; organisation & logistics is the consistent weak point — and the widest internal-vs-external gap.
Staff helpfulness leads; logistics lags
Mean score by question, all surveys · sorted high to low.
Bar colour: green ≥ 4.0 · blue 3.5–4.0 · red < 3.5 (out of 5).
Internal stakeholders rate higher on every dimension
Mean score by question — internal vs external. The gap is widest on logistics and likelihood to recommend.
Satisfaction by event type
Weighted mean satisfaction · sorted. Bubble shows survey count.
Net Promoter Score by event type
% promoters − % detractors · sorted. Green ≥ 40, amber 20–40, red < 20.
Trend over time
Quarterly trajectory across the 2026–2029 programme. Satisfaction and positive sentiment are shown on separate scales (no shared axis) so each trend reads honestly. Both move in the same direction — engagement improvements are landing with stakeholders.
Satisfaction up +0.48 pts from '26 Q1 to '27 Q4
Weighted average satisfaction (out of 5) by quarter. Dashed line = 4.0 target.
Positive sentiment by quarter
Share of open-text responses coded positive (%).
Survey volume by quarter
Responses processed each quarter — the workload behind the 10-day turnaround.
Qualitative & open-text analysis
Open-ended responses coded into themes and sentiment. Staff professionalism and content relevance drive positive feedback; waiting time, follow-up and digital access drive the negatives — a clear, actionable picture for GIPF.
What stakeholders talk about — and how they feel about it
Theme frequency across all open-text responses, with net sentiment leaning · sorted by volume.
Sentiment by audience
Internal staff feedback skews more positive than external; both are net-positive.
Internal — 15 surveys
External — 15 surveys
Capture channel mix
How responses were collected · share of all responses.
Sample verbatim responses
Representative quotes (illustrative), auto-tagged by sentiment and theme — the qualitative evidence behind the scores.
“The consultants were patient and explained my pension options clearly. I left knowing exactly what to do next.”
“Best member session I have attended — the retirement-planning portion spoke directly to my situation.”
“The information was good, but we waited over an hour to be assisted. Please add more service points at big events.”
“A useful event overall, though the invitation reached us quite late. Earlier notice would improve attendance.”
“Very well organised and the venue was easy to reach. Registration was quick and friendly.”
“I struggled to finish the online survey on my phone — the link kept timing out.”
Survey register
Every analysed survey in one place — search, filter and sort to look up a specific event. Sorted by date (newest first) by default.
| Event ↕ | Audience ↕ | Quarter ↕ | Responses ↕ | Avg score ↕ | NPS ↕ | Sentiment ↕ | Top theme ↕ |
|---|