Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey Page 1 of

TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents I INTRODUCTION... 3 II SATISFACTION SURVEY... 4 II.1 What?... 4 II.1.1 Definition... 4 II.1.2 Satisfaction survey in Practice... 4 II.1.3 Pro s & Con s... 7 II.2 Why?... 7 II.2.1 Rationale: Why was this established?... 7 II.2.2 Impact: Why is it included in the process as an essential part?... 8 II.3 Outcome... 8 II.4 Lessons Learned?... 8 II.5 Another approach to satisfaction survey... 9 II.5.1 What?... 9 II.5.2 Why?... 1 II.5.3 Outcome... 1 III IMPACT ASSESSMENT... 11 III.1 What?... 11 III.1.1 Definition... 11 III.1.2 Impact Assessment in Practice... 11 III.1.3 Pro s & Con s... 13 III.2 Why?... 13 III.2.1 Rationale... 13 III.2.2 Impact: Why is it included in the process as an essential part?... 14 III.3 Outcome... 14 III.4 Lessons Learned?... 14 IV ANNEX 1... 15 Page 2 of

I INTRODUCTION Partnership management is essential to assure the best relationship and cooperation, business or research, between TTO s and industrial partners. A good and structured partnership management facilitates the daily work of Technology transfer officers and increases the chances to successfully transfer research results. Based on experiences, knowledge and expertise within the FITT consortium, three practices have been identified as crucial in partnership management: The Satisfaction Survey enables to identify weaknesses and strengths of partnerships and to improve on future collaborations. It can result in establishing mutual trust and long-lasting relationships, as well as gaining the partners loyalty. The Impact Assessment enables to measure the impact of transferred research results to industrial partners by identifying the benefits coming from the transferred technology and the impact of the transferred results on the partners organizations. On the other hand, Impact Assessment is an effective tool to justify technology transfer activities to various stakeholders, mainly policy makers. This document explains these two practices and identifies the value added for each of them from the Technology Transfer Officers point of view. The examples given come from the Public Research Center Henri Tudor &. Partnership Agreement is treated in a separate practice in the FITT Toolbox. Page 3 of

II SATISFACTION SURVEY II.1 WHAT? II.1.1 Definition The satisfaction survey is a powerful tool that shows how the organization is perceived by partners 1. In this manner, the organization has a continuous feedback on its activities and can assess its role in the economical and social environment. This satisfaction survey involves some organizational impacts like: Organizational culture changes Internal process changes Another version of the satisfaction survey includes a mirror survey: a survey carried out internally by interviewing the staff that has been involved in a project carried out in collaboration with a partner. This additional survey enables to identify the gap between partners satisfaction degree and its perception from inside of the organization. The evolution of the results over time proofs whether the new policies, actions and measures have improved the way in which the organization interacts and exchanges with its partners. II.1.2 Satisfaction survey in Practice The satisfaction survey evaluation consists of specific parts which will be explained in detail in the following section of the document: 1. Selection of satisfaction indicators 2. Getting the questionnaire ready 3. Selection of the partners to be interviewed by phone followed by a face to face interview (based on the answers from the phone interview) 4. Running the survey 5. Results analysis and reporting 6. Results communication II.1.2.1 Selection of satisfaction indicators The selection of indicators depends primarily on which satisfaction aspects the organization wants to evaluate. Another aspect to take into account is the level of the survey: a high level evaluation with focus on global satisfaction or a more specific one with in-depth satisfaction evaluation. In general terms, the most usual indicators relate to: - The quality of the provided services (training sessions, project results, etc). 1 In the context of PROs the word partners represents either clients or partners with a contractual or noncontractual relationship. Throughout the document we will use the word partner for both partners and clients, without distinction. Page 4 of

- The quality of the relationships between partners and organization s business people (persons in contact with partners: responsible of external relationship, responsible of project definition, etc). - The relationship with the teams in charge of the execution of the project or of those providing the services (project team staff, trainer, etc.). - The administrative aspects (billing, partnership agreements, contractual matters, etc.). - Additional elements of the services provided (other services, documentation, support, etc). - Logistic aspects (delays, quality of the project management). - Communication aspects (quality of the information shared, access to the information, etc.). - Follow-up (partner support services, exploitation of the results). - Quality/price ratio if relevant. Choose your criteria bearing in mind to eliminate those criteria that: 1. The organization is not able to modify. 2. Are very specific to a partner or a category of partners. 3. Have no direct impact on the quality of the service provided (e.g. image, price). II.1.2.2 Getting the questionnaire ready The structure and content of the questionnaire will strongly depend on the objectives and the type of survey (see in annex 1 the questionnaire used). Two main questionnaire types can be used: A specific one for training and educational activities if it is relevant to your organization. Another one for other services (professional services, participation in projects, etc). The phone is a suitable channel for larger numbers of interviews. In this case, the questionnaire (questions) must be adapted to fit the constraints intrinsic to this communication channel: Short interviews (not more than1 minutes). Ask mainly quantitative rating questions (using an even scale from 1 to 6) assessing the global quality of the service provided). A reduced amount of open questions (around 3). The order in which questions are asked is very important. To reduce the bias induced to the interviewee, it is good practice to order the questions as follows: 1. Global satisfaction. 2. Evaluation of the different aspects related to the quality of the provided services. 3. Evaluation of the satisfaction related to the contacts with staff. 4. Open questions (3) to identify the required improvement, strengths and new services to be developed. 5. Identification of the interviewee profile: partner, project which he/she was involved, etc. After the interview session by telephone, a small number of face to face interviews (around 1) is highly recommended. These interviews will facilitate the identification of improvement opportunities based on dissatisfactions mentioned during the interview. These questionnaires must use more qualitative questions to clearly identify the causes behind the expressed dissatisfaction. II.1.2.3 Selection of the partners and contacts to be interviewed The interviewees are selected from the partners base according to following criteria: They were in contact with the organization during last year AND the collaborations (professional services, partnership in a project, etc.) are already finished during the evaluation year. Page 5 of

The selection of the sample (out of those who filled in a specific satisfaction questionnaire at the end of a training or educational service) is made up from two different types of partners: o Institutional partners: ministries, chambers, professional associations, research organisms and universities. These organizations must have long lasting relationships with our organization on a contractual or non-contractual basis. o Other partners: the organizations that were in contact with us during the year before the survey and where the collaboration already finished. II.1.2.4 Running the survey The survey is carried out once a year. Each selected partner is contacted by phone using a predefined script. The interviewer goes through the questionnaire items. As a rule of thumb, the average return obtained must be above 7%. Once the telephone interviews are finished, the faceto-face interviews start with those organizations that have expressed a low satisfaction The mirror survey is also carried out following the same principles and techniques. II.1.2.5 Results analysis and reporting A statistical analysis of the completed questionnaires is required to quantitatively evaluate the partners satisfaction degree according to the pre-defined criteria: Exploitability of results Information flow between partners and the organization Respect of deadlines Collaboration management Price/quality ratio Project follow-up Quality of the provided services Specificity of the proposed solutions Clarity of the proposed services Reactivity Understanding of the partners needs As mentioned before, these criteria must remain unchanged from survey to survey to see how the satisfaction scores evolve over time and to measure the impact of the actions taken. An important aspect of this analysis is the identification of those criteria with the biggest impact on the partners global satisfaction. These key criteria are identified through the interviews with the lowest scores. The results of the statistical analysis will be reported, including the following subjects: Results of the statistical analysis Identified organizational strengths Suggested improvements Conclusions of the survey Tracking of the satisfaction trends over time Comparison of the results as a function of the interviewees profile The overall survey report covers the partners satisfaction survey, the mirror satisfaction survey and the training/educational activities satisfaction survey. Page 6 of

II.1.2.6 Results communication The results of the survey are distributed both inside and outside of with respect to the following order: 1. First, the results are communicated to the heads of the departments, who in turn communicate the results to their research teams (the teams with low evaluations scores are considered as a priority). 2. Next, the results are presented to the s administration board. 3. Next, an executive summary of the survey results is sent to the interviewees, with focus on the improvement actions. 4. Then, the results are published in the s annual activity report. The overall report of the evaluation survey is kept confidential (so no diffusion is allowed outside of the organization). II.1.3 Pro s & Con s Pro s Con s This technique has enabled to remain aligned with the partners needs and expectations. After 4 years we have observed improvements on some of the satisfaction criteria. This shows that the measures taken after the survey have had a positive impact on the partners satisfaction. The consciousness of the gap between internal and external perception helps to align the staffs point of view with that of the partners (the mirror survey results). The satisfaction criteria could be judged as being too general (the whole organization), without providing feedback to the organization s departments, service units or the research teams. The evaluation criteria must evolve over time as the s activities evolve. However, changing the criteria quite often jeopardizes the impact of the actions taken over time. II.2 WHY? II.2.1 Rationale: Why was this established? As an ISO (ISO 91 2 )certified organization, we must respect quality levels and processes in our activities. This certification is only one of the motivations, others are: Know the points of view of our partners and position the organization in function of this insight. Gather those points of view in a neutral contact or context (not a commercial one). Use good or outstanding results as relevant and selling arguments for: o Potential partners 2 ISO 91:2 specifies requirements for a quality management system where an organization: 1. needs to demonstrate its ability to consistently provide products that meet customers needs and are compliant to applicable regulatory requirements. 2. aims to enhance customer satisfaction through the effective application of the system, including processes for continuous improvement of the system and the assurance of compliance to customers and applicable regulatory requirements. Page 7 of

o o Prospects Employees II.2.2 Impact: Why is it included in the process as an essential part? Even if a longer time frame is required to evaluate the real benefits of the actions taken, the satisfaction survey provides continuous feedback to to improve its interaction with externals. The presentation of the results to the internal staff (mainly at the management level) enables them to improve specific aspects during their day to day activities. The latter is of course more relevant for those in close contact with our partners. The satisfaction survey, carried out on a regular basis, is an excellent tool for organizational selfimprovement: identifying weaknesses and strengths, implementing actions to reduce weaknesses and following up on the effectiveness of those improvement actions over time. From a partnership point of view, the satisfaction survey is a strategy to keep the partners in the loop. It is an external communication tool telling our partners how important they are for CRP Henri Tudor. As a consequence: o We need a pool of active partners ready to be involved in our research activities (on contractual or non-contractual basis). o The same partners are sometimes involved in our technology transfer activities as a natural continuation of their participation in our research projects. o Some partners are involved in more strategic activities at, like helping to define the research roadmap at corporate and department levels. o Other partners are involved in the advisory boards and working groups in research projects (formal or informal). II.3 OUTCOME The outputs may differ depending on the selected evaluation criteria. Some criteria have evolved positively, other ones negatively. Nevertheless, the global perception on has improved over time. However, it is still too early to state its impact on the organization. The satisfaction survey has been totally integrated into the culture and even has become a landmark in the s annual report. No unexpected or undesirable side effects have been observed yet. Next steps and evolutions: Measure of s innovation impact Analysis of the brand value Carry out a specific satisfaction survey focusing on the type of collaboration (service supply or collaboration in research projects) Link satisfaction indicators and organizational performance indicators II.4 LESSONS LEARNED? Partner segmentation is of utmost importance to be successful in this domain. A detailed data analysis enables to identify improvement opportunities and the key satisfaction criteria Tracking of the satisfaction evolution over time: experience shows that the improvement requires a long time span to be observed whereas the satisfaction degradation can be observed more quickly. Page 8 of

Practical recommendations to avoid mistakes: o The sample has to be big enough to guarantee a high degree of confidence on statistical analysis results. As a rule of thumb, the results coming up from a sample lower than 5 individuals are considered as being not reliable. o The survey must be considered as a partner perception. The results must not be considered as the strongest indicator to measure the organization s performance. To be relevant and useful, these perception results must be compared to more specific ones. II.5 ANOTHER APPROACH TO SATISFACTION SURVEY II.5.1 What? II.5.1.1 Definition has started to work on the process of evaluation of transfer activities within research collaborations. This evaluation is meant to analyze the performance of a PRO (Public Research Organization) from the point of view of the partner, as well as of the PRO s staff. This allows not only the measurement of partners satisfaction, but also the detection of the possible gap between internal and external perception. The results can provide useful conclusions on different aspects of partnerships and the possible improvements. II.5.1.2 Evaluation of transfer activities in practice The first step towards introduction of this process was a reflection followed by drafting a set of guidelines (See practice Partnership Agreement). The process consists of collecting a number of well defined data coming from people working on research projects both in and in the partner organization. The collected data is used as an input to diverse analyzes and is grouped in six categories: - Quality of the collaboration (relations between individuals) - Positioning of the collaboration (why we have worked together) - Usage and impact of the results - Quality of deliverables - Irregularities / vagaries of the collaborations (problems and their causes) - Human cost of the collaboration The guidelines describe the objective of each category of data and the main questions to be asked in order to obtain the right data. The meaning of each group of questions is explained to be able to interpret the results. The construction of the questionnaire is of high importance for the efficiency of the process and the reliability of the results. The guidelines propose a structure for each question and possible options for the answer (for details see annex 1). The emphasis is put on data collection and therefore we avoid the use of open questions. It is a strong recommendation to avoid all ambiguities and to privilege clear and simple questions, even if some issues are difficult to approach in this way (e.g. impact of the results). Nevertheless, some further work needs to be done to draft a concrete questionnaire on this basis to evaluate a partnership. The questionnaire should have two versions: one for the PRO and one for the partner. The time span of evaluation should be ideally from two to three years, starting from the moment when the first data is available. A diversity of contributors should be involved, if possible. Page 9 of

Once collected, the data should be updated after this period on the aspects of usage and exploitation of the results (12 to 18 months after the end of the collaboration), so that its analysis could bring a truly valuable outcome. II.5.1.3 Pro s & Con s Pro s o o o o o The evaluation guidelines are oriented at research partnerships, which make them a valuable tool for the PRO to perform a specific analysis. The goal is to be able to assess the perception of research collaboration by the actors that have been involved in the collaboration - a research team and an industrial partner - and to measure a possible gap in the satisfaction perceived from both sides. Corrective measures and adaptation of collaboration criteria can then be initiated. The open format allows creation of different versions of the questionnaire depending on the survey method (online survey, data collected by TT officers, interns or external organizations, etc.); it also allows adjustment of the content and creation of a specific questionnaire for each partnership. The guidelines can be adapted to evaluate collaboration within other networks as well as for European projects. Con s o o o There is no ready to use questionnaire, but it has to be drafted using the guidelines. The evaluation takes quite long in order to guarantee relevant results. Also obtaining the engagement of various contributors after the end of the project can be difficult, in particular on the partner s side. These guidelines should be completed in the future with details on methods of analysis of the data and presentation of the results. II.5.2 Why? II.5.2.1 Rationale: Why was this established? This evaluation is perceived as one of the ways to better meet the needs of society as well as partners expectations, improving the quality of collaboration and its results. The ability to evaluate the outcome and the performance of the collaboration and to apply corrective steps, if needed, allows to make partners come back to work with the PRO who has put in place such practices. II.5.3 Outcome The process of evaluation of research partnerships has not yet been introduced in s activities. The reflection phase has come to an end and now the measures should be taken to start collecting and analyzing data on partnerships, using the guidelines presented above. Page 1 of

III IMPACT ASSESSMENT III.1 WHAT? III.1.1 Definition As defined by the EARTO (European Association of Research and Technology Organizations), Research and Technology Organizations (RTOs 3 ) are specialized knowledge organizations dedicated to the development and transfer of science and technology to the benefit of the economy and society. As a RTO, the main mission of is to work for a continually better society for Luxemburg. Therefore the Impact Assessment for research activities and transfer is really important, even if it is not an easy activity to manage. Impact Assessment is a process that assesses the change in the well-being of the individual or the performances of organizations that can be a result of a specific project, service provided or transferred research outcome. In the short term, the Impact Assessment for RTO is considered as an activity to measure the impact of research and transfer activities on social, economical and environmental fields. III.1.2 Impact Assessment in Practice In past years, tried to implement this practice without a real success. The main reason already identified was that the impact assessment was carried out too early (just after the end of research projects) and with no appropriate impact indicators. In fact, experience has shown that each decision and action taken in an organization has an impact on the whole of the organization s services and activities. That made it difficult to isolate and assess how the transferred result increased the performance of the partner s organization. is currently reworking and rethinking the process of Impact Assessment. The review is based on best practices from other European RTOs. As the process itself is at an early development stage, this document will describe the best practices identified and give guidelines for an Impact Assessment practice that will be used for the new Impact Assessment Process in. III.1.2.1 Impact in the research chain In order to identify the process of research and transfer activities of a RTO, and to point out the stage with the biggest impact, here is a picture of a simplified research project chain. 3 In this document we will consider that a PRO is a special case of an RTO. The difference only refers to the status of the organization itself (public or private). We will not make any difference between both terms. Page 11 of

III.1.2.2 Categories and impact indicators The Impact Assessment will measure the impact of research and transfer activities on different categories of impact and related indicators. These categories depend on who will benefit from the research or transfer projects. Here is a list of examples of indicators according to the category of impacts. Category of impacts Impact on economy, technology and commercialization Impact on knowledge, expertise and human capital Impact on networking and social capital Impact on decision making and public discourse Impact on social and physical environment Example of indicators Competitiveness Improvement Product/Service/Process/ Creation/Improvement Cost-savings R&D Efficiency Improvement Research Methods Creation/Improvement Patent Applications Expertise strengthening Research Methods Improvement Scientific Impacts: scientific publications, conference and seminar presentation Improvement of networking between research partners, firms, etc. Network creation Domestic networks, Global networks Organizational and social innovations Support of decision making through expert consultancy and governmental advice Participation in legislative and strategic planning Norms, Regulation and standards Material/Resources and/or Energy Consumption Reduction Regional development and growth Promotion Safety Promotion Infrastructure Development III.1.2.3 Impact Assessment method The Impact assessment can be handled by a survey. The questionnaire is fitted to the type of partner. The survey might be outsourced to ensure impartiality of the results. Selection of projects needs to be done in an effective way: not all the projects have impact on the society and some of them do not fit with the Impact Assessment. III.1.2.4 Sampling for Impact assessment The interviewed partner must be selected from the partners base who were in contact with the RTO during the last years AND where the collaboration object (professional services, partnership in a project, ) is closed for two or three years. The selection of the sample is made for two different types of partners: Institutional partners: Ministries, Chambers, Professional Associations, Research Organisms and Universities Customers: who received a provision of a service (research, consultancy, ) Page 12 of

III.1.2.5 Impact assessment frequency The impact assessment can be carried out once a year with selected partners (the sample) to ensure a good follow-up on the evolution of the impact indicators from year to year. III.1.2.6 Results diffusion The results of the Impact Assessment survey have to be communicated to different stakeholders such as: Management team of the RTO for integrating results in everyday management Supervision Ministry of the RTO for steering RTO activities and resources Partners (e.g. in Annual Report) for communication and loyalty III.1.3 Pro s & Con s Pro s Con s The Impact Assessment and communication of results to various stakeholders is very important to justify the public funding of research projects. It strengthens the RTO positioning as a partner-centric research center providing innovation to improve their business and activities. In a self-improvement process, the Impact Assessment allows to be more aligned with the partner s needs and expectations. By underlining the positive impacts created by RTO research results and transfer, the Impact Assessment becomes an excellent mean for communication. The publication of good results improves the corporate image among the stakeholders. Impact indicators are difficult to identify and evaluate. For partners, impacts from research and transfer collaboration are sometimes difficult to isolate from the other actions engaged by the organization. Every action engaged in a specific department or service has an impact on the other ones making it difficult to assess the contribution of the improvement measure in question. A long timeframe between the end of the research project and the Impact Assessment is required to get reliable results. That can be an issue for some partners that need to observe or assess the results quickly. III.2 WHY? III.2.1 Rationale As mentioned in the introduction, as a RTO, has the mission of to work for a continually better society. Because of their dedication to this mission, needs to demonstrate that its activities have a real impact on society. Impact assessment is the best way to qualify the effects of its research and transfer activities. As a public funded RTO (PRO), CRP Henri Tudor, as most of the RTOs, needs to justify how the public money has been invested by showing results and translate them into Key Performance Indicators (KPI). For the moment, KPI s are only based on scientific publications, spin-off creation and license distribution. It would be good if also the impact indicators were integrated in those KPI s. Another reason is that this practice also allows being closer to partners. It gives the opportunity to be aware of the gap Page 13 of

between internal RTO s perception and the real perception that partners have on RTO s research and transfer activities. To be more efficient, Impact assessment should be linked to the satisfaction survey. III.2.2 Impact: Why is it included in the process as an essential part? In spite of the low success of implementing this practice for the first time, is convinced that Impact Assessment is essential to justify and improve its reputation as an organization in the society. This practice is not easy to implement and really needs to be adapted case by case for each organization. The most sensitive part is the selection of the right impact indicators. This selection is closely related to the core activity of the research organization and the partners. At, this practice will be linked to the corporate strategy. By getting assessments of the impact of our activities in the economic, environmental and social context, CRP Henri Tudor will be able to justify their role as a valuable RTO in the country. Moreover, this will proof to the Ministries that is investing in public research projects with a real impact on the country s society and its economy. The communication activities around Impact Assessment results can follow the same steps as presented in the Satisfaction survey section (III.1.2.6). From a partnership point of view, the impact assessment survey can be used as a strategic tool to keep the partners in the loop. At the same time it is an excellent external communication tool tell to our partners how important it is for to have a positive impact on their activities. III.3 OUTCOME The outputs differ depending on the selected impact criteria. Without real implementation, it is too early to claim if the Impact Assessment survey will contribute to or will be responsible for a performance improvement of. III.4 LESSONS LEARNED? Thanks to previous experiences in Impact Assessment activities at, we have been able to identify the critical points. The most important ones are: the selection of impact criteria and the timeframe required to run the Impact Assessment Survey. Being not specific enough in impact criteria could create confusion and frustration to partners being interviewed. On the other hand, if the Impact Assessment is done too early, partners will not be able to accurately estimate the impact on their activities. Based on the results and lessons learned from past experiences, is engaged to rethink the whole process and to integrate the best practices coming from other European RTOs as mentioned in this document. Page 14 of

IV Annex 1 Satisfaction Survey in - Questionnaire Question Introduction At reception: Hello, my name is...... and I am working for Quest. We are mandated by the Public Research Center Henri Tudor to gauge the satisfaction of its clients and partners. Could I speak to Mr. / Ms........................? If absent: When do you think I can get back in touch with Mr. / Ms............? To the respondent: Hello Mr / Ms......... I'm...... and I am working for Quest. We are mandated by the Public Research Center Henri Tudor to gauge the satisfaction of its clients and partners. We sent you a letter on the subject. You would help me a lot if I could ask you some questions. It will only last 5 minutes. If refusal: If you do not have time now, I can call you at your convenience.. Series 11 Satisfaction in general IV.1.1.1.1.1.1 Question 11 First, I ask you to evaluate your satisfaction concerning your collaboration with the Public Research Centre Henri Tudor. Please use a scale from 1 to 6, with 1 meaning that you are not at all, 6 meaning that you are completely IV.1.1.1.1.1.2 Series 12 Satisfaction on aspects of collaboration I will now cite some aspects about the collaboration. Could you please evaluate these aspects using the same model as for the previous question? (1 being not at all, 6, being very ). Page 15 of

IV.1.1.1.1.1.3 Question 1 The exploration, understanding and taking into account of your organization's needs IV.1.1.1.1.1.4 Question 122 Reactivity and response time in relation to your questions and applications IV.1.1.1.1.1.5 Question 123 The clarity of the offers and services IV.1.1.1.1.1.6 Question 124 The relevance of the offered services and solutions IV.1.1.1.1.1.7 Question 125 The quality of the services itself Page 16 of

IV.1.1.1.1.1.8 Question 126 The monitoring of the project and file (contract, invoices, after sales services...) IV.1.1.1.1.1.9 Question 127 The quality/price ratio of the services IV.1.1.1.1.1.1 Question 128 The respect of deadlines IV.1.1.1.1.1.11 Question 129 The quality and flow of information between the Centre and you IV.1.1.1.1.1.12 Question 1 The utility and usefulness of the results of the Centre's services Page 17 of

IV.1.1.1.1.1.13 Series 13 Satisfaction on aspects of collaborators I will now explore the quality of your relationship with the staff of the Centre. We will follow the same method: you give me an assessment of 1 to 6 (1 being not at all, 6, being very ). IV.1.1.1.1.1.14 Question 131 The ease of identifying the right partner/contact at the Centre IV.1.1.1.1.1.15 Question 132 The ease of getting in touch with the staff of the Centre IV.1.1.1.1.1.16 Question 133 The flexibility and availability of the Centre's staff IV.1.1.1.1.1.17 Question 134 The employees' ability to solve problems and propose accurate solutions IV.1.1.1.1.1.18 Question 135 The professional competence of the Centre's staff Page 18 of

IV.1.1.1.1.1.19 Question 136 The social competence of the Centre's staff Page 19 of

IV.1.1.1.1.1.2 Series 14 Open Questions IV.1.1.1.1.1. Question 141 What would be, according to your opinion, an improvement priority for the Centre? (Explore)...... IV.1.1.1.1.1.22 Question 142 What is in your opinion, the Centre s major asset? (Explore)...... IV.1.1.1.1.1.23 Question 143 What services / products would you like to see being developed by the Centre? (Explore)...... IV.1.1.1.1.1.24 Series 15 CV of the organisation IV.1.1.1.1.1.25 Question 151 For how long did your company collaborate with the Centre? For less than a year Between 1 and 2 years Between 3 and 5 years Between 5 and 1 years More than 1 years Don't know IV.1.1.1.1.1.26 Question 153 Which function do you exactly occupy in your company? (Encode the exact denomination) Page 2 of

IV.1.1.1.1.1.27 Question 154 (Do not ask encode) Name of the company: IV.1.1.1.1.1.28 Question 155 (Do not ask encode) Name of the respondent: IV.1.1.1.1.1.29 Question 156 Category "client" Client lab materials (LTI) Client lab metrology (LTI) Client technological / regulatory / legislative (CVT) Client training / education Client start up Client Project: encode name of project:.. IV.1.1.1.1.1.3 Question 2 End & save On behalf of the Public Research Centre Henri Tudor, I would like to thank you for your time as well as for your cooperation in this investigation. Thank you and goodbye. Page of