Quask FormArtist Data Report

www.quask.com

Survey Description

Form Name EnterpriseSpiceJanuary08

Author Alec Dorling
Company
Date of Report 1/25/2008 12:35
Number of responses*: #REF!
Last Form update: 1/13/2008

*A single person can send multiple responses.

Description Of Data Fields
Each record contains the following data fields:

Fields Identifying The Respondent

Field Number Description Field Size

1 Record ID 9
2 Email Address of Respondent 20

Fields Describing The Answers Given By The Respondent

Field Number Description of Question Style of Question Answer Type * On Page ... Answers * Field Size
3 Name Text Input Page 2a 50
4 Priority SM Drop down Selection Single Page 3 3 - High 64
2 - Medium
1 - Low
5 Perceived SM Emoticon Single Page 3 1 - Excited 4
2 - Pleased
3 - Neutral
4 - Displeased
5 - Angry
6 Relevance SM Emoticon Single Page 3 1 - Excited 4
2 - Pleased
3 - Neutral
4 - Displeased
5 - Angry
7 Comment SM Text Input Page 3 0
8 Exist SM Drop down Selection Single Page 3 4 - Fully 64
3 - Largely
2 - Partially
1 - None
9 Compliance SM Drop down Selection Single Page 3 4 - Fully 64
3 - Largely
2 - Partially
1 - None
10 Priority HRM Drop down Selection Single Page 4 3 - High 64
2 - Medium
1 - Low
11 Perceived HRM Emoticon Single Page 4 1 - Excited 4
2 - Pleased
3 - Neutral
4 - Displeased
5 - Angry
12 Relevance HRM Emoticon Single Page 4 1 - Excited 4
2 - Pleased
3 - Neutral
4 - Displeased
5 - Angry
13 Text Input 8 Text Input Page 4 0
14 Exist HRM Drop down Selection Single Page 4 4 - Fully 64
3 - Largely
2 - Partially
1 - None
15 Compliance HRM Drop down Selection Single Page 4 4 - Fully 64
3 - Largely
2 - Partially
1 - None
16 Priority FIM Drop down Selection Single Page 5 3 - High 64
2 - Medium
1 - Low
17 Perceived FIM Emoticon Single Page 5 1 - Excited 4
2 - Pleased
3 - Neutral
4 - Displeased
5 - Angry
18 Relevance FIM Emoticon Single Page 5 1 - Excited 4
2 - Pleased
 3 - Neutral
4 - Displeased
5 - Angry
19 Comment FIM Text Input Page 5 0
20 Exist FIM Drop down Selection Single Page 5 4 - Fully 64
3 - Largely
2 - Partially
1 - None
21 Compliance FIM Drop down Selection Single Page 5 4 - Fully 64
3 - Largely
2 - Partially
1 - None
22 Priority MSBD Drop down Selection Single Page 6 3 - High 64
2 - Medium
1 - Low
23 Perceived MSBD Emoticon Single Page 6 1 - Excited 4
2 - Pleased
3 - Neutral
4 - Displeased
5 - Angry
24 Relevanc MSBD Emoticon Single Page 6 1 - Excited 4
2 - Pleased
3 - Neutral
4 - Displeased
5 - Angry
25 Comment MSBD Text Input Page 6 0
26 Exist MSBD Drop down Selection Single Page 6 4 - Fully 64
3 - Largely
2 - Partially
1 - None
27 Compliance MSBD Drop down Selection Single Page 6 4 - Fully 64
3 - Largely
2 - Partially
1 - None
28 Priority SCM Drop down Selection Single Page 7 3 - High 64
2 - Medium
 1 - Low
29 Perceived SCM Emoticon Single Page 7 1 - Excited 4
2 - Pleased
3 - Neutral
4 - Displeased
5 - Angry
30 Relevance SCM Emoticon Single Page 7 1 - Excited 4
2 - Pleased
3 - Neutral
4 - Displeased
5 - Angry
31 Comment SCM Text Input Page 7 0
32 Exist SCM Drop down Selection Single Page 7 4 - Fully 64
3 - Largely
2 - Partially
1 - None
33 Compliance SCM Drop down Selection Single Page 7 4 - Fully 64
3 - Largely
2 - Partially
1 - None
34 Priority AFM Drop down Selection Single Page 8 3 - High 64
2 - Medium
1 - Low
35 Perceived AFM Emoticon Single Page 8 1 - Excited 4
2 - Pleased
3 - Neutral
4 - Displeased
5 - Angry
36 Relevance AFM Emoticon Single Page 8 1 - Excited 4
2 - Pleased
3 - Neutral
4 - Displeased
5 - Angry
37 Comment AFM Text Input Page 8 0
38 Existance AFM Drop down Selection Single Page 8 4 - Fully 64
3 - Largely
 2 - Partially
1 - None
39 Compliance AFM Drop down Selection Single Page 8 4 - Fully 64
3 - Largely
2 - Partially
1 - None
40 Priority EM Drop down Selection Single Page 9 3 - High 64
2 - Medium
1 - Low
41 Perceived EM Emoticon Single Page 9 1 - Excited 4
2 - Pleased
3 - Neutral
4 - Displeased
5 - Angry
42 Relevance EM Emoticon Single Page 9 1 - Excited 4
2 - Pleased
3 - Neutral
4 - Displeased
5 - Angry
43 Comment EM Text Input Page 9 0
44 Exist EM Drop down Selection Single Page 9 4 - Fully 64
3 - Largely
2 - Partially
1 - None
45 Compliance EM Drop down Selection Single Page 9 4 - Fully 64
3 - Largely
2 - Partially
1 - None
46 Priority C Drop down Selection Single Page 10 3 - High 64
2 - Medium
1 - Low
47 Perceived C Emoticon Single Page 10 1 - Excited 4
2 - Pleased
3 - Neutral
4 - Displeased
5 - Angry
48 Relevance C Emoticon Single Page 10 1 - Excited 4
2 - Pleased
3 - Neutral
4 - Displeased
5 - Angry
49 Comment C Text Input Page 10 0
50 Exist C Drop down Selection Single Page 10 4 - Fully 64
3 - Largely
2 - Partially
1 - None
51 Compliance C Drop down Selection Single Page 10 4 - Fully 64
3 - Largely
2 - Partially
1 - None
52 Priority KM Drop down Selection Single Page 11 3 - High 64
2 - Medium
1 - Low
53 Perceived KM Emoticon Single Page 11 1 - Excited 4
2 - Pleased
3 - Neutral
4 - Displeased
5 - Angry
54 Relevance KM Emoticon Single Page 11 1 - Excited 4
2 - Pleased
3 - Neutral
4 - Displeased
5 - Angry
55 Comment KM Text Input Page 11 0
56 Exist KM Drop down Selection Single Page 11 4 - Fully 64
3 - Largely
2 - Partially
1 - None
57 Compliance KM Drop down Selection Single Page 11 4 - Fully 64
3 - Largely
2 - Partially
1 - None
 58 Inv_Addr Flag - 1
59 Eml_Sent Flag - 1
*Applies only to *Applies only to
Selection-Style Questions Single Answer Type

Fields Describing The Actions Taken By Respondent

Field Number Description of Action Field Size

60 Clicked 3
61 FormFiller 8
62 Ext. Code 3
63 Sent 3
64 R-ID 10
65 Recvd Date 19
66 Friend 50
67 Ext. Key 50
68 Rec-Ident. 50
 Category Number Fred Kaminski Arthur Valle Ralf-Peter Frick Pieter Botman Luigi Buglione

Compliance AFM 39 Largely Partially Partially Partially Largely

Compliance C 51 Fully Partially Largely None Partially
Compliance EM 45 Fully Partially Largely Largely Largely
Compliance FIM 21 Fully Partially Partially Fully Largely
Compliance HRM 15 Largely Partially Partially Partially Largely
Compliance KM 57 Fully Partially Partially Partially Largely
Compliance MSBD 27 Largely Partially Largely Partially None
Compliance SCM 33 Fully Partially Partially Largely Partially
Compliance SM 9 Largely Largely Largely Largely Largely

Existance AFM 38 Largely Partially Partially Partially Largely

Exist C 50 Fully Partially Largely Partially Partially
Exist EM 44 Fully Partially Largely Largely Fully
Exist FIM 20 Fully Partially Partially Fully Largely
Exist HRM 14 Fully Partially Partially Partially Partially
Exist KM 56 Fully Partially Partially Partially Partially
Exist MSBD 26 Largely Partially Largely Partially Partially
Exist SCM 32 Fully Largely Partially Largely Largely
Exist SM 8 Largely Largely Largely Largely Largely

Perceived AFM 35 0 Pleased 0 Pleased Neutral

Perceived C 47 0 Pleased 0 Displeased Excited
Perceived EM 41 0 Pleased 0 Excited Neutral
Perceived FIM 17 0 Pleased 0 Angry Neutral
Perceived HRM 11 Pleased Pleased 0 Excited Excited
Perceived KM 53 0 Pleased 0 Displeased Excited
Perceived MSBD 23 0 Pleased 0 Excited Displeased
Perceived SCM 29 Pleased Pleased 0 Excited Pleased
Perceived SM 5 0 Pleased Pleased Pleased Pleased

Relevance AFM 36 0 Pleased 0 Displeased Neutral

Relevance C 48 0 Pleased 0 Displeased Pleased
Relevance EM 42 0 Pleased 0 Pleased Neutral
Relevance FIM 18 0 Pleased 0 Excited Neutral
Relevance HRM 12 Pleased Pleased 0 Pleased Excited
Relevance KM 54 0 Pleased 0 Angry Pleased
Relevanc MSBD 24 Pleased Pleased 0 Excited Displeased
Relevance SCM 30 Pleased Pleased 0 Excited Pleased
Relevance SM 6 Pleased Pleased Pleased Excited Excited

Priority AFM 34 Medium Medium Low Medium Medium

Priority C 46 High Low Medium High High
Priority EM 40 High Low Medium High Low
Priority FIM 16 High Low Medium Medium Medium
Priority HRM 10 High High Medium High High
 Priority KM 52 High Medium Low Medium High
Priority MSBD 22 Medium Medium Medium Medium Low
Priority SCM 28 High High Medium High Medium
Priority SM 4 High Medium High Medium High
Martine Herpers Renato Vasques Cristina Henriques Keith M. Heston Winifred Menezes

None None Partially Partially

Partially Largely None None
Largely Largely Partially None
Largely Largely Largely Fully
None Partially Fully Partially Largely
None Largely Partially None
Partially Largely None None
Largely Partially None Partially
Partially Largely Largely Partially Partially

Largely None Partially Partially

Partially Largely Largely Partially
Fully Largely Partially None
Largely Partially Largely Largely
Fully Largely Fully Largely Fully
None Partially Largely Largely None
Partially Partially Partially Partially
Largely Partially Partially Partially
Partially Fully Largely Fully Largely

0 Pleased 0 0 Displeased
0 Pleased Neutral 0 Neutral
Excited Pleased Neutral Pleased 0
Angry Excited Neutral 0 Excited
Neutral Pleased Pleased Pleased Excited
0 Excited Pleased Excited Neutral
Pleased Excited Neutral Angry Excited
0 Excited Neutral 0 Pleased
Excited Excited Neutral Excited Pleased

0 Pleased Neutral 0 Displeased

Angry Excited Neutral Excited Pleased
0 Excited Neutral Pleased 0
Angry Excited Pleased Pleased Pleased
Excited Excited Pleased Excited Excited
0 Excited Pleased Excited Pleased
Neutral Pleased Neutral Pleased Pleased
0 Excited Neutral 0 Pleased
Pleased Excited 0 Excited Pleased

Low Medium Low Low Low

Medium High Medium Low
High Medium Medium Low
Low Medium Medium Low Medium
Medium High High Medium High
 High High High High
High Medium Medium Low Medium
High Low Low Medium
High High High High High
Dirk Malzahn Linda Ibrahim Jean-Martin SIMON Curt Wells Antanas Mitasiunas
- QUALIUM
Largely None Partially Partially
Largely None Partially None Largely
Fully Largely Partially Partially Partially
None Fully Partially Partially
Partially None Largely None Largely
Largely None None Largely
Largely None None Largely
Partially None None Largely
Largely Partially Largely None Largely

Partially Partially Partially Partially

Partially Partially Partially Largely Partially
Partially Largely Largely Largely Partially
Largely Largely Largely Partially
Partially Largely Fully Largely Largely
Partially Partially Partially Partially
Largely Partially Partially Partially
Partially Largely Partially Partially
Largely Fully Largely Largely Fully

Pleased Neutral 0 0 0
Excited Neutral 0 0 0
Excited Pleased Excited 0 0
Displeased Excited Neutral Excited 0
Pleased Pleased Excited Neutral 0
Pleased Pleased 0 Pleased 0
0 Neutral 0 Pleased 0
0 0 0 Pleased 0
Excited Pleased Excited Excited 0

Pleased Pleased 0 Excited 0

Excited Neutral 0 Pleased 0
Excited Pleased Excited 0 0
Displeased Excited 0 Excited 0
Pleased Pleased Excited Excited 0
Pleased Pleased 0 Excited 0
0 Pleased 0 Excited 0
0 0 0 Pleased 0
Excited Excited Excited Excited Excited

Medium Medium High Low

High Low Medium Medium Medium
High High High Medium Low
Low High Low High Low
Medium High High High Medium
Medium Medium Low High High
Medium Medium High Medium
Medium Low Medium Medium
High High High High High
Juergen Beimel Peter Brooks Hilary Knightley Alberto Sampaio Kirk Holmes

Largely Partially Largely

None Partially
Fully Fully
Fully Largely Fully Largely
Partially Largely Largely Partially
None Largely
Partially Largely None
Largely Fully
Fully Largely Largely

Partially Largely Largely None

Partially Partially Largely
Largely Fully Fully
Partially Fully Partially Partially
Fully Fully Fully Partially
Partially Largely Largely
Partially Largely Partially None
Largely Fully Largely
Fully Fully Fully Largely

0 0 0 0 Neutral
0 0 0 0 Displeased
0 0 0 Neutral 0
Excited 0 Neutral Neutral Pleased
Excited 0 Pleased Pleased Neutral
Pleased 0 0 0 0
Angry 0 Excited 0 Neutral
Pleased 0 Excited Excited 0
Excited 0 0 0 Excited

0 0 0 0 Pleased
0 0 Neutral 0 Neutral
0 0 0 0 0
Excited 0 Neutral 0 Pleased
Pleased 0 Pleased 0 Excited
Pleased 0 Neutral 0 Neutral
Neutral 0 Pleased 0 Pleased
Neutral 0 Excited Excited Pleased
Pleased 0 Neutral Excited Excited

Low Medium Medium Low Low

Low High Low Medium Low
Low Medium Medium Low
High Low Medium Low Medium
High High Medium Medium Medium
Medium High Medium High Low
Low Medium High Medium Low
Medium Medium High High Medium
High High Low Medium High
Emanuel Baker Risto Nevalainen Kimberly Gearns Vicky Hailey Valerie Betry

None Partially Largely

Partially None None None
Partially Partially Fully
Partially Largely Fully Fully
Partially Largely Largely Partially
Partially Largely Largely None
None Partially Largely None
None Partially Largely
Partially Fully Partially Fully None

None Largely Partially Partially

Partially Largely None None None
Partially Partially None
Partially Largely Largely Fully
Largely Partially Largely None Partially
Partially Partially Largely None Partially
None Partially Largely None Partially
None Partially None
Partially Largely Partially Partially Partially

Pleased 0 0 Excited Displeased

Pleased 0 0 Angry Neutral
Pleased 0 0 Excited Angry
0 0 0 Pleased Neutral
Excited 0 0 Excited Excited
Excited 0 0 Excited Excited
0 0 0 Excited Displeased
Pleased 0 Excited Excited Displeased
Excited Pleased Pleased Excited Excited

Pleased Pleased 0 Excited Displeased

Pleased Pleased Angry Angry Excited
Pleased 0 0 Excited Angry
0 0 Pleased Pleased Neutral
Excited 0 Displeased Excited Excited
Excited Pleased Pleased Excited Excited
0 Pleased 0 Excited Displeased
Pleased Pleased Pleased Excited Angry
Excited Pleased Pleased Excited Excited

Medium High Medium High Medium

Medium High Low Low Medium
Medium High Low
Low Low Medium Low
High Medium Low High High
High High High High High
Low High Medium High Low
Medium Medium High High Low
High High High High High
Jonathan D. Alejandro Bedini Robert Vickroy François Coallier None
Addelston
None Partially Largely 5
Largely Partially Partially None 10
None Partially Largely Partially 2
Partially Partially Fully Largely 1
Partially Partially Largely Partially 3
None None Partially Partially 8
None Largely Partially Partially 9
Partially None Largely Partially 5
Partially Partially Partially Fully 2

None Partially Fully 4

Largely Partially Partially Partially 3
None Largely Fully Partially 3
Partially Largely Fully Largely 0
Largely Partially Largely Largely 1
None Partially Largely Partially 4
None Largely Partially Partially 4
Partially Partially Largely Largely 2
Largely Partially Partially Fully 0

Angry
0 0 0 Pleased 0
Excited Excited 0 0 1
Angry Pleased 0 0 2
Excited Pleased 0 Pleased 2
Excited 0 0 Neutral 0
Excited Pleased 0 0 0
0 Pleased 0 0 2
Excited Displeased 0 0 0
Excited Displeased 0 Pleased 0

0 0 0 Excited 0
Excited Excited 0 Excited 3
Angry Pleased 0 0 2
Excited Pleased 0 Excited 1
Excited 0 0 Excited 0
Excited Pleased 0 Pleased 1
0 Pleased 0 Excited 0
Excited Pleased 0 Excited 1
Excited Neutral 0 Excited 0

Low
Medium Low Low High 11
High High Low Low 10
Low Medium Medium Low 9
High High Low High 12
Medium Medium Low Medium 2
Medium Low High Medium 4
Medium High Medium Low 7
High Medium Low Low 6
High Medium Medium High 1
Partially Largely Fully

10 7 0
8 5 1
9 7 5
7 8 9
13 10 1
7 7 1
7 8 0
9 6 2
9 12 4

13 6 1
15 7 1
7 8 6
9 11 5
9 10 8
15 6 1
16 6 0
10 9 2
7 13 8

Displeased Neutral Pleased Excited

2 3
2 4
0 3
1 6
0 4
1 1
2 3
2 1
1 1
6 1
3 4
6 5
5 6
9 9
7 7
4 5
7 7
9 12

3 2 7 3
1 4 6 7
0 2 6 4
1 3 8 7
1 0 8 13
0 2 11 7
2 3 10 4
0 2 10 7
0 2 8 16

Medium High
13 4
9 9
9 7
9 7
12 15
 8 16
15 6
12 9
5 23
 TALLIES
1 2 3
Category Number None Partially Largely
Compliance AFM 39 5 10 7
Compliance C 51 10 8 5
Compliance EM 45 2 9 7
Compliance FIM 21 1 7 8
Compliance HRM 15 3 13 10
Compliance KM 57 8 7 7
Compliance MSBD 27 9 7 8
Compliance SCM 33 5 9 6
Compliance SM 9 2 9 12

Existance AFM 38 4 13 6
Exist C 50 3 15 7
Exist EM 44 3 7 8
Exist FIM 20 0 9 11
Exist HRM 14 1 9 10
Exist KM 56 4 15 6
Exist MSBD 26 4 16 6
Exist SCM 32 2 10 9
Exist SM 8 0 7 13

Angry Displeased Neutral

Perceived AFM 35 0 2 3
Perceived C 47 1 2 4
Perceived EM 41 2 0 3
Perceived FIM 17 2 1 6
Perceived HRM 11 0 0 4
Perceived KM 53 0 1 1
Perceived MSBD 23 2 2 3
Perceived SCM 29 0 2 1
Perceived SM 5 0 1 1

Relevance AFM 36 0 3 2
Relevance C 48 3 1 4
Relevance EM 42 2 0 2
Relevance FIM 18 1 1 3
Relevance HRM 12 0 1 0
Relevance KM 54 1 0 2
Relevanc MSBD 24 0 2 3
Relevance SCM 30 1 0 2
Relevance SM 6 0 0 2

Low Medium High

Priority AFM 34 11 13 4
Priority C 46 10 9 9
Priority EM 40 9 9 7
Priority FIM 16 12 9 7
Priority HRM 10 2 12 15
Priority KM 52 4 8 16
Priority MSBD 22 7 15 6
Priority SCM 28 6 12 9
Priority SM 4 1 5 23
LLIES
4 5
Fully Avg Score
0 2.1
1 1.9
5 2.7
9 3.0
1 2.3
1 2.0
0 2.0
2 2.2
4 2.7

1 2.2
1 2.2
6 2.7
5 2.8
8 2.9
1 2.2
0 2.1
2 2.5
8 3.0

Pleased Excited
6 1 3.5
3 4 3.5
6 5 3.8
5 6 3.6
9 9 4.2
7 7 4.3
4 5 3.5
7 7 4.1
9 12 4.4

7 3 3.7
6 7 3.6
6 4 3.7
8 7 4.0
8 13 4.5
11 7 4.1
10 4 3.8
10 7 4.1
8 16 4.5

1.8
2.0
1.9
1.8
2.4
2.4
2.0
2.1
2.8
Record Number Name Priority SM Perceived SM Relevance SM Exist SM Compliance SM Priority HRM
1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10
1 Fred Kaminski High 0 Pleased Largely Largely High
2 Arthur Valle Medium Pleased Pleased Largely Largely High
3 Ralf-Peter Frick High Pleased Pleased Largely Largely Medium
4 Pieter Botman Medium Pleased Excited Largely Largely High
5 Luigi Buglione High Pleased Excited Largely Largely High
6 Martine Herpers High Excited Pleased Partially Partially Medium
7 Fred Kaminski High 0 0 Fully Fully High
8 Renato Vasques High Excited Excited Fully Largely High
9 Cristina Henriques High Neutral 0 Largely Largely High
10 Keith M. Heston High Excited Excited Fully Partially Medium
11 Winifred Menezes High Pleased Pleased Largely Partially High
12 Dirk Malzahn High Excited Excited Largely Largely Medium
13 Linda Ibrahim High Pleased Excited Fully Partially High
14 Jean-Martin SIMON - QUALIUM High Excited Excited Largely Largely High
15 Curt Wells High Excited Excited Largely None High
16 Antanas Mitasiunas High 0 Excited Fully Largely Medium
17 Juergen Beimel High Excited Pleased Fully Fully High
18 Peter Brooks High 0 0 Fully Largely High
19 Hilary Knightley Low 0 Neutral Medium
20 Alberto Sampaio Medium 0 Excited Fully Medium
21 Kirk Holmes High Excited Excited Largely Largely Medium
22 Emanuel Baker High Excited Excited Partially Partially High
23 Risto Nevalainen High Pleased Pleased Largely Fully Medium
24 Kimberly Gearns High Pleased Pleased Partially Partially Low
25 Vicky Hailey High Excited Excited Partially Fully High
26 Vicky Hailey High Excited Excited Partially Fully High
27 Valerie Betry High Excited Excited Partially None High
Perceived HRM Relevance HRM Exist HRM Compliance HRM Priority FIM Perceived FIM Relevance FIM Exist FIM Compliance FIM Priority MSBD
11 12 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22
Pleased Pleased Fully Largely High 0 0 Fully Fully Medium
Pleased Pleased Partially Partially Low Pleased Pleased Partially Partially Medium
0 0 Partially Partially Medium 0 0 Partially Partially Medium
Excited Pleased Partially Partially Medium Angry Excited Fully Fully Medium
Excited Excited Partially Largely Medium Neutral Neutral Largely Largely Low
Neutral Excited Fully None Low Angry Angry High
Pleased Excited Fully Fully Medium 0 0 Largely Largely Low
Pleased Excited Largely Partially Medium Excited Excited Largely Largely Medium
Pleased Pleased Fully Fully Medium Neutral Pleased Partially Largely Medium
Pleased Excited Largely Partially Low 0 Pleased Largely Largely Low
Excited Excited Fully Largely Medium Excited Pleased Largely Fully Medium
Pleased Pleased Partially Partially Low Displeased Displeased Largely None Medium
Pleased Pleased Largely None High Excited Excited Largely Fully Medium
Excited Excited Fully Largely Low Neutral 0
Neutral Excited Largely None High Excited Excited Largely Partially High
0 0 Largely Largely Low 0 0 Partially Partially Medium
Excited Pleased High Excited Excited Fully Low
0 0 Fully Partially Low 0 0 Partially Largely Medium
Pleased Pleased Fully Largely Medium Neutral Neutral Fully Fully High
Pleased 0 Fully Largely Low Neutral 0 Partially Medium
Neutral Excited Partially Partially Medium Pleased Pleased Partially Largely Low
Excited Excited Largely Partially Low 0 0 Partially Partially Low
0 0 Partially 0 0 High
0 Displeased Largely Largely Low 0 Pleased Largely Largely Medium
Excited Excited None Partially Medium Excited Excited Partially Fully High
Excited Excited None Largely Medium Pleased Pleased Largely Fully High
Excited Excited Partially Partially Low Neutral Neutral Fully Fully Low
Perceived MSBD Relevanc MSBD Exist MSBD Compliance MSBD Priority SCM Perceived SCM Relevance SCM Exist SCM Compliance SCM
23 24 26 27 28 29 30 32 33
0 Pleased Largely Largely High Pleased Pleased Fully Fully
Pleased Pleased Partially Partially High Pleased Pleased Largely Partially
0 0 Largely Largely Medium 0 0 Partially Partially
Excited Excited Partially Partially High Excited Excited Largely Largely
Displeased Displeased Partially None Medium Pleased Pleased Largely Partially
Pleased Neutral 0 0
0 0 Partially Partially High Pleased Excited Fully Fully
Excited Pleased Partially Partially High Excited Excited Largely Largely
Neutral Neutral Partially Largely Low Neutral Neutral Partially Partially
Angry Pleased Partially None Low 0 0 Partially None
Excited Pleased Partially None Medium Pleased Pleased Partially Partially
0 0 Largely Largely Medium 0 0 Partially Partially
Neutral Pleased Partially None Low 0 0 Largely None
0 0 0 0
Pleased Excited Partially None Medium Pleased Pleased Partially None
0 0 Partially Largely Medium 0 0 Partially Largely
Angry Neutral Medium Pleased Neutral
0 0 Partially Partially Medium 0 0 Largely Largely
Excited Pleased Largely Largely High Excited Excited Fully Fully
0 0 Partially High Excited Excited Largely
Neutral Pleased None None Medium 0 Pleased
0 0 None None Medium Pleased Pleased None None
0 Pleased Partially Medium 0 Pleased
0 0 Largely Partially High Excited Pleased Partially Partially
Excited Excited None Partially High Excited Excited None Partially
Excited Excited None Largely High Excited Excited None Largely
Displeased Displeased Partially None Low Displeased Angry
 Priority AFM Perceived AFM Relevance AFM Existance AFM Compliance AFM Priority EM Perceived EM Relevance EM Exist EM Compliance EM
34 35 36 38 39 40 41 42 44 45
Medium 0 0 Largely Largely High 0 0 Fully Fully
Medium Pleased Pleased Partially Partially Low Pleased Pleased Partially Partially
Low 0 0 Partially Partially Medium 0 0 Largely Largely
Medium Pleased Displeased Partially Partially High Excited Pleased Largely Largely
Medium Neutral Neutral Largely Largely Low Neutral Neutral Fully Largely
Low 0 0 Excited 0
Medium 0 0 Largely Largely Medium 0 Pleased Largely Partially
Medium Pleased Pleased Largely None High Pleased Excited Fully Largely
Low 0 Neutral None None Medium Neutral Neutral Largely Largely
Low 0 0 Partially Partially Medium Pleased Pleased Partially Partially
Low Displeased Displeased Partially Partially Low 0 0 None None
Medium Pleased Pleased Partially Largely High Excited Excited Partially Fully
Medium Neutral Pleased Partially None High Pleased Pleased Largely Largely
0 0 High Excited Excited Largely Partially
High 0 Excited Partially Partially Medium 0 0 Largely Partially
Low 0 0 Partially Partially Low 0 0 Partially Partially
Low 0 0 Partially Largely Low 0 0
Medium 0 0 Largely Partially Medium 0 0 Largely Fully
Medium 0 0 Largely Largely Medium 0 0 Fully Fully
Low 0 0 Low Neutral 0 Fully
Low Neutral Pleased None 0 0
Medium Pleased Pleased None None Medium Pleased Pleased Partially Partially
High 0 Pleased Largely 0 0
Medium 0 0 Partially Partially 0 0 Partially Partially
Medium Excited Excited Largely Largely High Excited Excited Partially Fully
High Excited Excited Partially Largely High Excited Excited None Fully
Medium Displeased Displeased Low Angry Angry
Priority C Perceived C Relevance C Exist C Compliance C Priority KM Perceived KM Relevance KM Exist KM Compliance KM
46 47 48 50 51 52 53 54 56 57
High 0 0 Fully Fully High 0 0 Fully Fully
Low Pleased Pleased Partially Partially Medium Pleased Pleased Partially Partially
Medium 0 0 Largely Largely Low 0 0 Partially Partially
High Displeased Displeased Partially None Medium Displeased Angry Partially Partially
High Excited Pleased Partially Partially High Excited Pleased Partially Largely
0 Angry 0 0 None
High Pleased Pleased Largely Largely High Excited Pleased Fully Fully
Medium Pleased Excited Partially Partially High Excited Excited Partially None
High Neutral Neutral Largely Largely High Pleased Pleased Largely Largely
Medium 0 Excited Largely None High Excited Excited Largely Partially
Low Neutral Pleased Partially None High Neutral Pleased None None
High Excited Excited Partially Largely Medium Pleased Pleased Partially Largely
Low Neutral Neutral Partially None Medium Pleased Pleased Partially None
Medium 0 0 Partially Partially Low 0 0
Medium 0 Pleased Largely None High Pleased Excited Partially None
Medium 0 0 Partially Largely High 0 0 Partially Largely
Low 0 0 Medium Pleased Pleased
High 0 0 Partially None High 0 0 Partially None
Low 0 Neutral Partially Partially Medium 0 Neutral Largely Largely
Medium 0 0 Largely High 0 0 Largely
Low Displeased Neutral Low 0 Neutral
Medium Pleased Pleased Partially Partially High Excited Excited Partially Partially
High 0 Pleased Largely High 0 Pleased Partially
Low 0 Angry None None High 0 Pleased Largely Largely
Low Angry Displeased None None Medium Excited Excited None None
Low Angry Angry None None High Excited Excited None Largely
Medium Neutral Excited None None High Excited Excited Partially None
28 Jonathan D. Addelston High Excited Excited Largely Partially Medium
29 Alejandro Bedini Medium Displeased Neutral Partially Partially Medium
30 Robert Vickroy Medium 0 0 Partially Partially Low
31 François Coallier High Pleased Excited Fully Fully Medium
Excited Excited Largely Partially High Excited Excited Partially Partially Medium
0 0 Partially Partially High Pleased Pleased Largely Partially High
0 0 Largely Largely Low 0 0 Fully Fully Medium
Neutral Excited Largely Partially High Pleased Excited Largely Largely Low
 0 0 None None High Excited Excited Partially Partially
Pleased Pleased Largely Largely Medium Displeased Pleased Partially None
0 0 Partially Partially Low 0 0 Largely Largely
0 Excited Partially Partially Low 0 Excited Largely Partially
Medium 0 0 None None Low Angry Angry None None
Low 0 0 Medium Pleased Pleased Largely Partially
Low 0 0 Partially Partially Medium 0 0 Fully Largely
High Pleased Excited Fully Largely Low 0 0 Partially Partially
High Excited Excited Largely Largely Medium Excited Excited None None
High Excited Excited Partially Partially Low Pleased Pleased Partially None
Low 0 0 Partially Partially High 0 0 Largely Partially
Low 0 Excited Partially None Medium 0 Pleased Partially Partially
 1 3 4 5 6
Record Number Name Priority SM Perceived SM Relevance SM
Fred Kaminski
1 High 0 Pleased
Arthur Valle
2 Medium Pleased Pleased
3 Ralf-Peter Frick High Pleased Pleased
Pieter Botman

4 Medium Pleased Excited

Luigi Buglione

5 High Pleased Excited

6 Martine Herpers High Excited Pleased
8 Renato Vasques High Excited Excited
9 Cristina Henriques High Neutral 0
10 Keith M. Heston High Excited Excited
11 Winifred Menezes High Pleased Pleased
12 Dirk Malzahn High Excited Excited
13 Linda Ibrahim High Pleased Excited
14 Jean-Martin SIMON - QUALIUM High Excited Excited
15 Curt Wells High Excited Excited
16 Antanas Mitasiunas High 0 Excited
Juergen Beimel
17 High Excited Pleased
 7 8 9
Comment SM Exist SM Compliance SM

Largely Largely
eSCM-SP eSourcing Capability Model - Service Provider ITIL: ISO20000
Largely Largely
Largely Largely
This is a reasonably well defined process area. More limited and confined to the IT services managed centrally but
provided throughout an enterprise. Of course I am referring ti 'IT' services. Another note: this process area overlaps
significantly with security management (or IT security). So the two process areas cannot be allowed to diverge or be
treated differently in E-SPiCE

Largely Largely
possible sources could be IT Service CMM, the upcoming CMMI-SVC (draft yet available at:
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/models/CMMI-Services-status.html) and ITIL v3, with ISO 20000-x

Largely Largely
ITIL Partially Partially
Fully Largely
Largely Largely
ITIL v3, eSCM-SP v2.01, eSCM-CL v1.1, ISO 20000 Fully Partially
ITIL Largely Partially
CMMI-SVC, ISO 20000, ITIL Largely Largely
ITIL version 3; ISO 20000; eSCM-SP Fully Partially
CMMI-Svc ITL v3 Largely Largely
Largely None
ISO/IEC 20000-1, ISO/IEC 20000-2 eSCM-CL, Part 1 eSCM-CL, Part 2 eSCM-SP, Part 1 eSCM-SP, Part 2 Fully Largely
All enterprises are dependent on the delivery of mature (IT) service management processes because those will highly
facilitate the enterprise business processes. Fully Fully
 10 11 12
Priority HRM Perceived HRM Relevance HRM

High Pleased Pleased

High Pleased Pleased

Medium 0 0

High Excited Pleased

High Excited Excited

Medium Neutral Excited
High Pleased Excited
High Pleased Pleased
Medium Pleased Excited
High Excited Excited
Medium Pleased Pleased
High Pleased Pleased
High Excited Excited
High Neutral Excited
Medium 0 0

High Excited Pleased

 13 14 15
Text Input 8 Exist HRM Compliance HRM
The human ressource department should be often a worthwhile to visit them.
Fully Largely
People-CMM
Partially Partially
Partially Partially
This is a high priority need, but currently the process and the discipline is less structured and standardized. I suggest that
we could approach this process area in stages: a) first inclusion of HR processes within E-SPICE would be very
mechanistic in nature, shallow in scope. Basic HRM processes would be recruitment and hiring, reviews and evaluation,
workforce training and development, etc. HOWEVER these processes would have simple criteria along with basic quality
criteria. b) second iteration of this process area would involve true integration of HRM into various areas of the business,
tying HRM goals and success to business goals and success. Partially Partially
Here a further SEI maturity model could be the People CMM v2.0

Partially Largely
Literature is available Fully None
This is one are that most companies talk about but do little if anything! Proposed: People CMM Largely Partially
Fully Fully
P-CMM, eSCM-SP v2.01 (People Management Capability Area) Largely Partially
P-CMM Fully Largely
P-CMM Partially Partially
12207; 15288; EFQM; baldrige; P-CMM Largely None
Fully Largely
Largely None
People CMM Largely Largely
 16 17 18
Priority FIM Perceived FIM Relevance FIM

High 0 0

Low Pleased Pleased

Medium 0 0

Medium Angry Excited

Medium Neutral Neutral

Low Angry Angry
Medium Excited Excited
Medium Neutral Pleased
Low 0 Pleased
Medium Excited Pleased
Low Displeased Displeased
High Excited Excited
Low Neutral 0
High Excited Excited
Low 0 0

High Excited Excited

 19 20 21
Comment FIM Exist FIM Compliance FIM
Every Assessemt should be acknowledge the business numbers of its company
Fully Fully
some practices on eSCM-SP: eSourcing Capability Management - Service Provider
Partially Partially
Partially Partially
This is a narrow process area or sub-discipline, and depending upon the nature of the industry in which the enterprise
operates, not always a strategic process. Also there is ambiguity in the title of this process area: does it cover all standard
corporate financial reporting and controls, reviews of how well the financial assets are deployed internally? Or is it limited to
'external' discretionary investments of captial not tied up in the enterprise internal plant and equipment?

Fully Fully
A possible ISO standard of interest could be the ISO 10014:2006/Cor1:2007 (Guidelines for realizing financial and
economical benefits)

Largely Largely

Largely Largely
Partially Largely
SAS 70, eSCM-SP v2.01 (del08) Largely Largely
SOX Largely Fully
Banking SPICE, COSO SPICE Largely None
ITIL; ITIM Largely Fully
Adressed by other domain (financial),
Largely Partially
Partially Partially
SOx, CoBit etc.
Fully
 22 23 24
Priority MSBD Perceived MSBD Relevanc MSBD

Medium 0 Pleased

Medium Pleased Pleased

Medium 0 0

Medium Excited Excited

Low Displeased Displeased

High Pleased Neutral
Medium Excited Pleased
Medium Neutral Neutral
Low Angry Pleased
Medium Excited Pleased
Medium 0 0
Medium Neutral Pleased
0 0
High Pleased Excited
Medium 0 0

Low Angry Neutral

 25 26 27
Comment MSBD Exist MSBD Compliance MSBD
I see here more focus in Business Dev. areas, in Mark. and Sales minor importance.
Largely Largely
some practices on eSCM-SP: eSourcing Capability Management - Service Provider
Partially Partially
Largely Largely
For enterprise level process improvement, these areas are all critical. Yet all are vaguely defined, and highly variable
depending upon the industry in which the enterprise is engaged! It may be that no standardized processes are available,
only generalized result indicators, such as those hinted at in the Baldridge criteria. If this is indeed the case, perhaps this
category of processes should not be carried into E-SPiCE, and we should consider how best to cover the problem of
integrating a marketing, sales or business devel process into the other enterprise level processes! Make a new process
category and call it enterprise integration processes? Partially Partially

Partially None

Partially Partially
Partially Largely
Partially None
Business Development CMM Partially None
CMMI-ACQ Largely Largely
Partially None

Partially None
Partially Largely
 28 29 30
Priority SCM Perceived SCM Relevance SCM

High Pleased Pleased

High Pleased Pleased

Medium 0 0

High Excited Excited

Medium Pleased Pleased

0 0
High Excited Excited
Low Neutral Neutral
Low 0 0
Medium Pleased Pleased
Medium 0 0
Low 0 0
0 0
Medium Pleased Pleased
Medium 0 0

Medium Pleased Neutral

 31 32 33
Comment SCM Exist SCM Compliance SCM

Fully Fully
some practices on eSCM-SP: eSourcing Capability Management - Service Provider and eSCM-CL: eSourcing Capability
Management - Client some practices on CMMI-DEV Largely Partially
Partially Partially
This is worthy of emphasis in E-SPiCE because the scope is clear, there are some technical process standards, some
specific criteria which can be evaluated or assessed from a business point of view. Note Risk, Security and outsourcing all
overlap with this process area.

Largely Largely
Instead of taking care only of ISO 12207/15288 and 15504-5 about processes, it could be important to consider also the
elaboration of some of these standards. For instance, ISO/IEC 15939:2007 on Measurement process (improving ORG.5),
ISO/IEC 14764:2006 on Maintenance, 16085 on Risk Management and so on. Again, but I don't know if it could be the right
place to insert it, it is fundamental the alignment between control mechanisms and business goals (as done in CMMI in
MA), and a possible source could be COBIT v4.1 Largely Partially

CMMI-Acq; eSCM and others. Largely Largely

Partially Partially
Partially None
CMMI-ACQ, SA-CMM Partially Partially
Partially Partially
SCOR Largely None

Partially None
Partially Largely
 34 35 36
Priority AFM Perceived AFM Relevance AFM

Medium 0 0

Medium Pleased Pleased

Low 0 0

Medium Pleased Displeased

Medium Neutral Neutral

Low 0 0
Medium Pleased Pleased
Low 0 Neutral
Low 0 0
Low Displeased Displeased
Medium Pleased Pleased
Medium Neutral Pleased
0 0
High 0 Excited
Low 0 0

Low 0 0
 37 38 39
Comment AFM Existance AFM Compliance AFM

Largely Largely
some practices on COBIT
Partially Partially
Partially Partially
See my earlier comments on the process area 'financial/investment management'.

Partially Partially

Largely Largely

Largely None
None None
ISO 14001 Partially Partially
ITIL?? Partially Partially
Partially Largely
Partially None

Partially Partially
Partially Partially

Partially Largely
 40 41 42
Priority EM Perceived EM Relevance EM

High 0 0

Low Pleased Pleased

Medium 0 0

High Excited Pleased

Low Neutral Neutral

Excited 0
High Pleased Excited
Medium Neutral Neutral
Medium Pleased Pleased
Low 0 0
High Excited Excited
High Pleased Pleased
High Excited Excited
Medium 0 0
Low 0 0

Low 0 0
 43 44 45
Comment EM Exist EM Compliance EM
Without Environment, you could not work as expected. :-)
Fully Fully
Some practices in CMMI-DEV (work environment standards) as well as in eSCM-SP
Partially Partially
Largely Largely
This is worthy of inclusion, as we already have standards at various levels for Health and Safety (state and federal) and for
environmental management (ISO). Unfortunately we have to abstract the existing standards down into 'common
denominator' standards and criteria here, and further, we have to express them in the form of process standards (rather
than other forms of quality criteria). This is somewhat limiting, I guess - I would prefer to have this process area be referring
to all the outside standards if possible and not weakening them.
Largely Largely
See the ISO 14000 family

Fully Largely

Fully Largely
Largely Largely
ISO 14001 Partially Partially
ISO 14000 maybe None None
OHSAS 18001 Partially Fully
ISO 14001; ISO 18001 Largely Largely
Refer to sustainable business approach and ratings Largely Partially
Largely Partially
Partially Partially
 46 47 48 49
Priority C Perceived C Relevance C Comment C
Collaboration comes more and more. All my customers work in the whole world 24/7, so suches platforms anre pretty
High 0 0 urgent.
some practices in People-CMM
Low Pleased Pleased
Medium 0 0
Very important from a cultural point of view, but extremely difficult to capture in a process standard! There are plenty of
techniques for collaborations, and plenty of social and cultural indicators supporting collaboration. But to superimpose a
process standard in order to force this might be going too far. Could E-SPiCE roll the collaboration (and knowledge
management) into a more general process area called culture, social environment, or something similar?

High Displeased Displeased

High Excited Pleased

0 Angry
Medium Pleased Excited
High Neutral Neutral
Medium 0 Excited
Low Neutral Pleased IPD-CMM This one is difficult to assess against
High Excited Excited
Low Neutral Neutral
Medium 0 0 Could adress cultural issues for off-shore IT development
Medium 0 Pleased
Medium 0 0

Low 0 0
 50 51 52 53 54
Exist C Compliance C Priority KM Perceived KM Relevance KM

Fully Fully High 0 0

Partially Partially Medium Pleased Pleased

Largely Largely Low 0 0

Partially None Medium Displeased Angry

Partially Partially High Excited Pleased

0 0
Partially Partially High Excited Excited
Largely Largely High Pleased Pleased
Largely None High Excited Excited
Partially None High Neutral Pleased
Partially Largely Medium Pleased Pleased
Partially None Medium Pleased Pleased
Partially Partially Low 0 0
Largely None High Pleased Excited
Partially Largely High 0 0

Medium Pleased Pleased

 55 56 57
Comment KM Exist KM Compliance KM
Knowledge must be transferred in the right, easy and certain way. Otherwise you lose money and potential.
Fully Fully
Some practices in People CMM and eSCM-SP
Partially Partially
Partially Partially
See my earlier comments regarding 'collaboration' process area. This is important strategically for any knowledge based
enterprise, less so for manufacturing. Difficult to express as a universal process standard. Varies from industry to industry
and even across national cultures. Consider rolling up into a broader process area within E-SPiCE, perhaps something
related to organizational culture, learning, knowledge, etc.

Partially Partially
KM is a relevant discipline allowing to leverage the overall maturity of an organization by its employees. A model quite used
for managing knowledge and helping an organization to elicit the tacit knowledge is the SECI model by Nonaka & Tageuchi
(http://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Creating-Company-Japanese-Companies-Innovation/dp/0195092694)

Partially Largely
None
Partially None
Largely Largely
eSCM-SP v2.01 (Knowlege Management Capability Area) Largely Partially
I don't know of any KM standard, but it is certainly very much talked about None None
Partially Largely
Partially None

Partially None
Partially Largely
18 Peter Brooks High 0 0
19 Hilary Knightley Low 0 Neutral
20 Alberto Sampaio Medium 0 Excited
Kirk Holmes

21 High Excited Excited

Emanuel Baker

22 High Excited Excited

23 Risto Nevalainen High Pleased Pleased
24 Kimberly Gearns High Pleased Pleased
Vicky Hailey
26 High Excited Excited
27 Valerie Betry High Excited Excited
Jonathan D. Addelston

28 High Excited Excited

29 Alejandro Bedini Medium Displeased Neutral
Robert Vickroy

30 Medium 0 0
31 François Coallier High Pleased Excited
 Fully Largely

Fully
ISO 20000, ITIL Version 3, ITIL Version 2

Largely Largely
If the SEI fails to deliver on a CMMI-Services, maybe the draft can be used as a starting point.

Partially Partially
ISO20000, ITIL3, new assessment models Largely Fully
Partially Partially
ISO/IEC 20000, ITIL document set
Partially Fully
Partially None
ITIL

Largely Partially
Partially Partially
This should be optional and not impact the basic appraisal result.

Partially Partially
ITIL ISO/IEC 20000 Fully Fully
High 0 0
Medium Pleased Pleased
Medium Pleased 0

Medium Neutral Excited

High Excited Excited

Medium 0 0
Low 0 Displeased

High Excited Excited

High Excited Excited

Medium Excited Excited

Medium 0 0

Low 0 0
Medium Neutral Excited
 Fully Partially
Fully Largely
Fully Largely
The following suggestions are all U.S. laws and applicable in the United States: ADA (disability accomodation), EEOC
(equal opportunity), USERRA (military Veterans), Fair Labor Standards Act (minimum wage), Employee Polygraph
Protection Act, Employee Retirement Income Security Act (e.g., pension rules), Immigration and Nationality Act, Federal
Employees' Compensation Act (disability for federal workers)

Partially Partially
The People CMM exists, and based on feedback from companies that have implemented it, it has a big payoff.

Largely Partially
Partially
Business practice best addressed by Malcolm Baldrige or other similar criteria Largely Largely

None Largely
Partially Partially
People CMM

Largely Partially
Partially Partially
This should be optional and not impact basic appraisal rating

Largely Largely
Largely Partially
Low 0 0
Medium Neutral Neutral
Low Neutral 0

Medium Pleased Pleased

Low 0 0
0 0
Low 0 Pleased

Medium Pleased Pleased

Low Neutral Neutral

High Excited Excited

High Pleased Pleased

Low 0 0
High Pleased Excited
 Partially Largely
Fully Fully
Partially
Financial Management is a component of ISO 20000

Partially Largely
I think this area goes a little far afield from what we are trying to accomplish.

Partially Partially

Largely Largely

Largely Fully
Fully Fully
EAMMF and related OMB approaches.

Partially Partially
Largely Partially
This subject is already over-controlled by legal and industry standards and audited on several levels- should not be part of
quality system appraisal. Appraisal should point out where finance/investment is impacted by quality - that's about all it's
worth. Remember Enron and what happened to their accounting firm and auditors - much greater legal liability in this than in
quality arena. Fully Fully
ITIL CoBIT ISO/IEC 29382 Largely Largely
Medium 0 0
High Excited Pleased
Medium 0 0

Low Neutral Pleased

Low 0 0
High 0 Pleased
Medium 0 0

High Excited Excited

Low Displeased Displeased

Medium 0 0
High Pleased Pleased

Medium 0 0
Low 0 Excited
 Partially Partially
Largely Largely
Partially
highly subjective area

None None
This also appears to me to be a bit far afield from our objective.

None None
Partially
Largely Partially

None Largely
Partially None
No known generally accepted standards or guidelines, unless Baldrige and Commonwealth of VA variations are considered
to give partial coverage.

None None
Largely Largely
This should optional and not impact the basic appraisal rating - one would have to determine that quaility had not been
addrwssed and if so distill out the quality arttributes related to performing the activity - otherwise it is not worth the
investment of time
Partially Partially
Partially Partially
Medium 0 0
High Excited Excited
High Excited Excited

Medium 0 Pleased

Medium Pleased Pleased

Medium 0 Pleased
High Excited Pleased

High Excited Excited

Low Displeased Angry

High Excited Excited

Medium Displeased Pleased

Low 0 0
Low 0 Excited
 Largely Largely
Fully Fully
Largely
I am not familiar with what we can use here.

This to me can be considered as kind of internal services. Maybe adapting some of the content of a services model would
be appropriate for this.
None None

Partially Partially

None Largely

SCM or Supply Network Management is an extension of the subcontractor management area. Can check with the Logistics
Institute at GA if there is interest in identifying standards outside of ERP systems, Some work at DLA and USTRANSCOM
is appropriate see the CORE standard process, but it is for materiel largely and not for engineering services, I believe.
Partially Partially
Partially None
This is already over-controlled and one would have to determine that quaility had not been addressed and if so distill out the
quality arttributes related to performing the activity - otherwise it is not worth the investment of time

Largely Largely
Largely Partially
Medium 0 0
Medium 0 0
Low 0 0

Low Neutral Pleased

Medium Pleased Pleased

High 0 Pleased
Medium 0 0

High Excited Excited

Medium Displeased Displeased

Medium 0 0
Low 0 0

Low 0 0
High Pleased Excited
 Largely Partially
Largely Largely

From the National Fire and Protection Association (some of these could also be listed under Safety):
---------------------------------- NFPA 5000 Building Construction and Safety Code, NFPA 75 Standard for the Protection of
Information Technology Equipment, NFPA 76 Standard for the Fire Protection of Telecommunications Facilities, NFPA 70
National Electric Code (NEC), NFPA70B Recommended Practice for Electrical Equipment Maintenance, NFPA 70E
Standard for Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces, NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm Code, NFPA 73
Electrical Inspection Code for Existing Dwellings, NFPA 75 Standard for the Protection of Electronic Computer/Data
Processing Equipment, NFPA 77 Recommended Practice on Static Electricity, NFPA 79 Electrical Standard for Industrial
Machinery None
Similar comment as for supply chain management. Without adequate asset and facilities management, I think it would
heavily impact the ability to do a decent job of development. This is a function that is usually managed at the enterprise
level. None None
ITIL covers this quite well, also ISO19770 Largely
Partially Partially
The International Facility Management Association has some source material.
Partially Largely

Unless partially covered by ITIL, I have low awareness of what's available here.

None None

THis should be optional. Once again, there are other directives and associations for this subject area - let's just deal with
quality. One would have to determine that quaility had not been addressed and if so distill out the quality arttributes related
to performing the activity - otherwise it is not worth the investment of time
Partially Partially
ITIL ISO/IEC 19770 Fully Largely
Medium 0 0
Medium 0 0
Low Neutral 0

0 0

Medium Pleased Pleased

0 0
0 0

High Excited Excited

Low Angry Angry

Low Angry Angry

Medium Pleased Pleased

Medium 0 0
Low 0 0
 Largely Fully
Fully Fully
Fully
ISO 14000 family (ISO 14001:2004 and ISO 14004:2004) for environmental management

The CMMI now includes work environment. The SEI could do a better job of describing what needs to be done, so this is
an area that an enterprise model could really pick up on and do something effective.
Partially Partially

Partially Partially
Environment and health should be separate disciplines as they are quite distinct and different from each other and do not
address the same issues. None Fully

I'm not sure of this topic's place in Enterprise SPICE, but I need to learn more.

None None
Largely Partially
THis should be optional. There is already resistance building to oppse it because exisitng regulations and industry control
exist. QUality is already being addressed in this arena. One would have to determine that quaility had not been addressed
and if so distill out the quality arttributes related to performing the activity - otherwise it is not worth the investment of time
Fully Largely
Partially Partially
High 0 0
Low 0 Neutral
Medium 0 0
while there is a lot of talk, research, and activity around this topic, I am not aware of anything we could base compli ance
checks on

Low Displeased Neutral

A lot of this depends on how collaboration is defined. Some aspects of that are covered in the CMMI (collaboration with
stakeholders), but I believe that there are other areas of collaboration that need to be addressed.
Medium Pleased Pleased
High 0 Pleased Is related to project management, HR and portfolio management. Maybe some PMI materials cover this?
Low 0 Angry
I don't see the value of including this discipline at this time.
Low Angry Angry
Medium Neutral Excited
IPTs in CMMI and PMBOK

High Excited Excited

High Excited Excited
THis is to subjective to be able to cite best practice - not a mature arena to do appraisals in.

Low 0 0
Low 0 Excited
Partially None High 0 0
Partially Partially Medium 0 Neutral
Largely High 0 0

Low 0 Neutral

Partially Partially High Excited Excited

Largely High 0 Pleased
None None High 0 Pleased

None None High Excited Excited

None None High Excited Excited

Largely Largely Medium Excited Excited

Partially Partially Low Pleased Pleased

Partially Partially High 0 0

Partially None Medium 0 Pleased
 Partially None
Largely Largely
Largely
while there is a lot of talk, research, and activity around this topic, I am not aware of anything we could base compliance
checks on

This is probably partially related to the HR aspects, but knowledge management and retention is a big problem if you have
a mobile workforce, or a workforce that often works from home.
Partially Partially
Learning organisation materials, lot of EU related research done in this topic Partially
Largely Largely
In addition to KM, Information Management is another discipline which should be included and yet is generally not that well
managed in the industry (with the same ratings as KM). None Largely
Partially None
KM has so many poor definitions that it's not clear what the consensus for standards would be. This could drain a lot of
resources due to its immaturity.

None None
Partially None
This subject area has to many variables to be able to definitively judge whether something is being done correctly or not -
stick to the impact on quality here not the process as the process is repidly evolving. One would have to determine that
quaility had not been addressed and if so distill out the quality arttributes related to performing the activity - otherwise it is
not worth the investment of time Largely Partially
Partially Partially
 Original
Sort Order
Scale Type
SM 9.5
HRM 15.5
KM 57.5
FIM 21.5
SCM 33.5
EM 45.5
MSBD 27.5
C 51.5
AFM 39.5
Priority SM 4 3 point 1 5 23
Perceived SM 5 5 point 0 1 1 9
Relevance SM 6 5 point 0 0 2 8
Exist SM 8 4 point 0 7 13 8
Compliance SM 9 4 point 2 9 12 4
Priority HRM 10 3 point 2 12 15
Perceived HRM 11 5 point 0 0 4 9
Relevance HRM 12 5 point 0 1 0 8
Exist HRM 14 4 point 1 9 10 8
Compliance HRM 15 4 point 3 13 10 1
Priority FIM 16 3 point 12 9 7
Perceived FIM 17 5 point 2 1 6 5
Relevance FIM 18 5 point 1 1 3 8
Exist FIM 20 4 point 0 9 11 5
Compliance FIM 21 4 point 1 7 8 9
Priority MSBD 22 3 point 7 15 6
Perceived MSBD 23 5 point 2 2 3 4
Relevanc MSBD 24 5 point 0 2 3 10
Exist MSBD 26 4 point 4 16 6 0
Compliance MSBD 27 4 point 9 7 8 0
Priority SCM 28 3 point 6 12 9
Perceived SCM 29 5 point 0 2 1 7
Relevance SCM 30 5 point 1 0 2 10
Exist SCM 32 4 point 2 10 9 2
Compliance SCM 33 4 point 5 9 6 2
Priority AFM 34 3 point 11 13 4
Perceived AFM 35 5 point 0 2 3 6
Relevance AFM 36 5 point 0 3 2 7
Existance AFM 38 4 point 4 13 6 1
Compliance AFM 39 4 point 5 10 7 0
Priority EM 40 3 point 9 9 7
Perceived EM 41 5 point 2 0 3 6
Relevance EM 42 5 point 2 0 2 6
Exist EM 44 4 point 3 7 8 6
Compliance EM 45 4 point 2 9 7 5
Priority C 46 3 point 10 9 9
Perceived C 47 5 point 1 2 4 3
Relevance C 48 5 point 3 1 4 6
Exist C 50 4 point 3 15 7 1
Compliance C 51 4 point 10 8 5 1
 Priority KM 52 3 point 4 8 16
Perceived KM 53 5 point 0 1 1 7
Relevance KM 54 5 point 1 0 2 11
Exist KM 56 4 point 4 15 6 1
Compliance KM 57 4 point 8 7 7 1
 Raw
Avg # Votes Max Points Avg % of Criteria Unweighted Avg Weighted Avg
Points Cast on Scale Scale Weighting Across Criteria Across Criteria
83% 84%
77% 79%
71% 71%
72% 71%
70% 71%
69% 69%
63% 63%
62% 63%
62% 62%
2.8 29 3 92% 2.00 Criteria for discipline selection:
4.4 23 5 88% 1.00
• Priority criticality, importance or urgency fo
4.5 26 5 91% 2.00
(high), next set of disciplines (medium), som
3.0 28 4 76% 2.00
2.7 27 4 67% 1.00 • Relevance to enterprise operations and su
2.4 29 3 82% 2.00 business)
4.2 22 5 85% 1.00 • Perceived need, value or risk reduction for
4.5 22 5 90% 2.00 assessments (does this discipline need to be
2.9 28 4 72% 2.00 success be reduced by including this discipli
2.3 27 4 58% 1.00 assessments be with respect to this disciplin
1.8 28 3 61% 2.00 • Existence/maturity of process standards an
3.6 20 5 72% 1.00 this discipline have mature best practices?)
4.0 20 5 79% 2.00 • Compliance requirements regarding these
2.8 25 4 71% 2.00 (do you need to comply with requirements re
3.0 25 4 75% 1.00
2.0 28 3 65% 2.00
3.5 16 5 70% 1.00
3.8 19 5 77% 2.00 Criteria for source material selection:
2.1 26 4 52% 2.00 • only major, essential, widely-recognized pro
2.0 24 4 49% 1.00 should be selected as source documents (ot
2.1 27 3 70% 2.00 documents)
4.1 17 5 82% 1.00 • the number of sources for a discipline shou
4.1 20 5 82% 2.00 • process source documents should be propo
2.5 23 4 62% 2.00 improvement approaches (i.e. sources indica
2.2 22 4 56% 1.00
1.8 28 3 58% 2.00
3.5 12 5 70% 1.00
3.7 15 5 73% 2.00
2.2 24 4 54% 2.00
2.1 22 4 52% 1.00
1.9 25 3 64% 2.00
3.8 16 5 75% 1.00
3.7 14 5 74% 2.00
2.7 24 4 68% 2.00
2.7 23 4 66% 1.00
2.0 28 3 65% 2.00
3.5 14 5 70% 1.00
3.6 21 5 72% 2.00
2.2 26 4 56% 2.00
1.9 24 4 47% 1.00
2.4 28 3 81% 2.00
4.3 16 5 85% 1.00
4.1 21 5 82% 2.00
2.2 26 4 54% 2.00
2.0 23 4 51% 1.00
 Prospective
Groupings Follow-Up
1
1
2 Kirk + Antanas
2 Linda
2 Curt
2 Vicky
3 Winifred
3 Alec
3 Renato
selection:
portance or urgency for inclusion (should this be in first release
plines (medium), sometime in future (low)?)
ise operations and success (how relevant is this to your

ue or risk reduction for including this discipline in enterprise

s discipline need to be assessed? will risks to enterprise
y including this discipline? how valuable to the enterprise will
espect to this discipline?)
f process standards and best practices in the discipline (does
ture best practices?)
ments regarding these disciplines in stakeholder enterprises
y with requirements regarding this discipline?)

aterial selection:
widely-recognized process standards/models/documents
source documents (others may be useful reference

s for a discipline should be limited to 3 to 5 for a given area

ments should be proposed, rather than method specific
hes (i.e. sources indicate what, not how)
 TALLIES
1 2 3 4
Category Original Scales (low to high)
Row 3 point scale Low Medium High
Number 4 point scale None Partially Largely Fully
5 point scale Angry Displeased Neutral Pleased
Compliance AFM 39 4 point 5 10 7 0
Compliance C 51 4 point 10 8 5 1
Compliance EM 45 4 point 2 9 7 5
Compliance FIM 21 4 point 1 7 8 9
Compliance HRM 15 4 point 3 13 10 1
Compliance KM 57 4 point 8 7 7 1
Compliance MSBD 27 4 point 9 7 8 0
Compliance SCM 33 4 point 5 9 6 2
Compliance SM 9 4 point 2 9 12 4

Existance AFM 38 4 point 4 13 6 1

Exist C 50 4 point 3 15 7 1
Exist EM 44 4 point 3 7 8 6
Exist FIM 20 4 point 0 9 11 5
Exist HRM 14 4 point 1 9 10 8
Exist KM 56 4 point 4 15 6 1
Exist MSBD 26 4 point 4 16 6 0
Exist SCM 32 4 point 2 10 9 2
Exist SM 8 4 point 0 7 13 8

Perceived AFM 35 5 point 0 2 3 6

Perceived C 47 5 point 1 2 4 3
Perceived EM 41 5 point 2 0 3 6
Perceived FIM 17 5 point 2 1 6 5
Perceived HRM 11 5 point 0 0 4 9
Perceived KM 53 5 point 0 1 1 7
Perceived MSBD 23 5 point 2 2 3 4
Perceived SCM 29 5 point 0 2 1 7
Perceived SM 5 5 point 0 1 1 9

Relevance AFM 36 3 point 0 3 2 7

Relevance C 48 3 point 3 1 4 6
Relevance EM 42 3 point 2 0 2 6
Relevance FIM 18 3 point 1 1 3 8
Relevance HRM 12 3 point 0 1 0 8
Relevance KM 54 3 point 1 0 2 11
Relevanc MSBD 24 3 point 0 2 3 10
Relevance SCM 30 3 point 1 0 2 10
Relevance SM 6 3 point 0 0 2 8

Priority AFM 34 5 point 11 13 4

Priority C 46 5 point 10 9 9
Priority EM 40 5 point 9 9 7
Priority FIM 16 5 point 12 9 7
Priority HRM 10 5 point 2 12 15
 Priority KM 52 5 point 4 8 16
Priority MSBD 22 5 point 7 15 6
Priority SCM 28 5 point 6 12 9
Priority SM 4 5 point 1 5 23
 5

Avg
Weighted
Excited Score

2.1
1.9
2.7
3.0
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.7

2.2
2.2
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.2
2.1
2.5
3.0

1 3.5
4 3.5
5 3.8
6 3.6
9 4.2
7 4.3
5 3.5
7 4.1
12 4.4

3 3.7
7 3.6
4 3.7
7 4.0
13 4.5
7 4.1
4 3.8
7 4.1
16 4.5

1.8
2.0
1.9
1.8
2.4
2.4
2.0
2.1
2.8