RMSCC Red Meat Data Standards Post-Meeting Survey

Post-meeting survey for the first Working Group meeting of the Data Reporting and Feedback Data Standards Development Project.

Question 1. How relevant to your organisation's work was the information presented and discussed in the meeting?

1. Extremely relevant
2. Very relevant
3. Moderately relevant
4. Slightly relevant
5. Not at all relevant
6. Not enough information to judge

Simply enter the number that corresponds to your response. Select an option 1 - Extremely relevant 2 - Very relevant 3 - Moderately relevant 4 - Slightly relevant 5 - Not at all relevant 6 - Not enough information to judge

Question 2. How compelling did you find the case for industry data standards to address disconnected data across the supply chain?

1. Extremely compelling
2. Very compelling
3. Moderately compelling
4. Slightly compelling
5. Not at all compelling
6. Not sure

Simply enter the number that corresponds to your response.

Question 3. Which aspects of the presentation strengthened the case for industry data standards, and which aspects weakened it?

Open response.

Question 4. How useful was the animal-sex example in showing why compatible data language matters?

1. Extremely useful
2. Very useful
3. Moderately useful
4. Slightly useful
5. Not at all useful
6. Not sure

Simply enter the number that corresponds to your response.

Question 5. How much value do you think industry-owned and maintained data standards could deliver for your organisation?

1. Very significant value
2. Significant value
3. Moderate value
4. Limited value
5. No value
6. Not enough information to judge

Simply enter the number that corresponds to your response.

Question 6. Where would you expect the greatest benefit, if any?

Open response.

Question 7. What concerns or reservations, if any, do you have about the proposed approach?

1. Implementation cost or staff workload
2. Compatibility with existing systems
3. Commercial data confidentiality or control
4. Ownership and ongoing maintenance of standards
5. Consistent adoption across the industry
6. Whether benefits would justify the effort
7. No concerns at this stage
8. Need more information before forming a view
9. Other

Enter your top three numbered responses.
If selecting (9) Other, please add a note.
These are possible reactions, not claims about the project.

Question 8. How confident are you that the proposed Technical Working Group arrangements will allow broader industry needs to be heard?

1. Extremely confident
2. Very confident
3. Moderately confident
4. Slightly confident
5. Not at all confident
6. Not enough information to judge

Simply enter the number that corresponds to your response.

Question 9. What would improve your confidence that broader industry needs will be heard?

Open response.

Question 10. How confident are you that the proposed Technical Working Group arrangements will allow your organisation's needs to be heard?

1. Extremely confident
2. Very confident
3. Moderately confident
4. Slightly confident
5. Not at all confident
6. Not enough information to judge

Simply enter the number that corresponds to your response.

Question 11. What would improve your confidence that your organisation’s needs will be heard?

Open response.

Question 12. Before considering the proposed focus areas in the next question, what do you believe are the most important areas for industry to address?

Open response.

Question 13. Which potential focus areas would you most like the project to prioritise?

1. Disease and defect feedback/feed-forward for producers
2. Regional and market-category disease-and-defect reporting
3. Slaughter and chiller assessment data for producer feedback/feed-forward
4. De-identified regional slaughter and chiller assessment benchmarking
5. Processor livestock animal welfare incident reporting and its integration with disease, defect and Fit-for-Transport requirements
6. De-identified regional reporting of processor livestock animal welfare incidents
7. Fit-for-Transport data standards for feedlots and livestock software vendors
8. Not enough information to prioritise
9. Another priority

These labels summarise the proposed seven potential focus areas for the project.
Select up to three (3) numbered responses. Please add a note if selecting (9).

Question 14. Overall, how supportive are you of the proposed direction for developing Red Meat Data Language standards?

1. Strongly supportive
2. Somewhat supportive
3. Neither supportive nor opposed
4. Somewhat opposed
5. Strongly opposed
6. Need more information before forming a view

Simply enter the number that corresponds to your response.

Question 15. What most influenced your response?

Open response.

Question 16. What information, evidence or clarification would help you or your organisation decide how to participate in this project?

Open response.

Question 17. What is the most important message you would like the project team to take from your reaction to this presentation?

Open response.

Name

Email

    Please answer the anti-spam question: 

Send