January 12, 2004
To: ASAS/ADSA Boards
From: Dave Anderson, 2003 Program Chair
RE: Results
of 2003 ADSA/ASAS Joint Meeting Survey
The survey was suggested
by ASAS Board member, Ron Kensinger and the survey questions were prepared with
assistance from Joe Ford. Thanks to
FASS staff (Keely Roy, Jeff Turner) for adapting the questions to an excellent
web format that made the survey easy to use. The survey was emailed to 2,505
meeting attendees. There were 687
responses to the survey (27% return).
Thanks again to FASS staff for summarizing the responses to the specific
questions (Brenda Carlson, Paula Schultz, others) and to Joe Ford who helped me
summarize the large number of individual comments. The summary report has been reviewed by 2003 co-chair, Chuck
Schwab as well as Larry Benyshek, Joe Ford, Paula, Brenda and Jerry Baker. Their suggestions have been added. The report is attached.
2003
ADSA-ASAS Joint Meeting Survey Results
The meeting survey was emailed to 2,505 meeting attendees. Did not count emails that “bounced”. 687 meeting attendees responded to the
survey; 27% return.
SURVEY
RESULTS
ADEQUACY OF FACILITIES:
Phoenix as a location for meeting
290 Excellent – 42%
310 Acceptable – 45%
60 Marginal – 8%
24 Unacceptable – 3%
Adequacy of rooms for symposia and oral presentations
305 Excellent – 44%
288 Acceptable – 42%
68 Marginal – 10%
23 Unacceptable – 3%
Adequacy of area for poster presentations
464 Excellent – 68%
188 Acceptable – 27%
26 Marginal – 4%
6 Unacceptable – 1%
Adequacy of area for exhibits
472 Excellent – 69%
186 Acceptable – 27%
17 Marginal – 2%
9 Unacceptable – 1%
QUALITY OF PRESENTATIONS:
Symposia Presentations
349 Exceptional – 51%
330 Acceptable – 48%
5 Unacceptable – 1%
Oral Presentations
264 Exceptional – 38%
413 Acceptable – 60%
7 Unacceptable – 1%
Poster Presentations
282 Exceptional – 41%
389 Acceptable – 56%
13 Unacceptable – 2%
NEW POSTER FORMAT
591 Continue this format in future meetings – 86%
62 Continue format but change time – 9%
31 Return to simultaneous scheduling – 5%
MY PROGRAM
Did you prepare a personalized schedule?
334 yes – 48%
347 no – 51%
Do you feel it's necessary to mail the program prior to the
meeting? (Society cost is about $15,000)
84 yes – 12%
572 no – 83%
CYBER CAFÉ
Did you use the cyber cafe?
243 yes – 35%
433 no – 63%
What was your average wait in line?
441 less than five minutes – 64%
43 five to ten minutes – 6%
78 ten to fifteen minutes – 11%
57 fifteen to twenty minutes – 8%
31 twenty to thirty minutes – 5%
30 over thirty minutes – 5%
Were data ports beneficial?
265 yes – 76%
85 no – 24%
ABSTRACTS
How should abstracts be provided to meeting attendees?
100 Hard copy only – 15%
37 CD only – 5%
547 Hard copy or CD – 80%
LIMITING SYMPOSIUM NUBMER
Recommendation for maximum symposium number
343 -- 30 or less – 50%
101 -- 25 or less – 15%
168 -- 20 or less – 24%
41 -- 15 or less – 6%
19 -- 10 or less – 3%
8 -- 5 or less – 1%
SUMMARY
OF COMMENTS
Phoenix
as a location
|
Concerns/Comments |
Potential Solutions |
|
1. There were several
positive comments about good location of hotels to convention center. These
were offset by those who found the distance to be too great 2. “Too hot!” was the
most frequently stated concern with Phoenix in June. 3. “Not many choices of
things to do within walking distance of the hotels” 4.“Not centrally located within the US” |
2. Wait for July in St. Louis 3. When selecting a location, place greater consideration on
evening activities for those attendees who do not participate in scheduled
activities. 4. This was intentional in an effort to have the meeting in
different parts of the US. |
Adequacy of rooms for symposia and oral presentations
|
Concerns/Comments |
Potential Solutions |
|
1. Room size too small for some topics a. Transition cows b. Ruminant Nutrition/Production c. Dairy estrus/ovulation synchronization d. Laminitis in Dairy 2. Setup of rooms a. Aisles next to wall b. Slide projector stand c. Screen d. Water for speakers 3. Room too cold 4. Noise from volleyball tournament 5. Some slide backgrounds do not show up well with lights on in
meeting room. 6. To prevent problems in switching computers between oral
presentations, make it a “law” that all presentations need to be loaded on a
common computer. |
1a. We knew going into planning that
the space at Phoenix would be a little tight. 1b. Develop database at 2004 meeting of room occupancy, potentially
through survey of session chairs. 1c. Make certain that Ruminant
Nutrition and Transition Cows have adequate space during the 2004 meeting. 1d. Overlapping topics were minimized
by staff assistance during the planning process in printing and viewing on a
large wall, the titles of all papers from all simultaneous sections for each
time slot. Continue this practice and
get as many eyes as possible reviewing the program lineup. 2a. Leave narrow aisle on sides of room as well as down center
to accommodate movement in and out of room. 2b. Slide projector stand obstructs view and should be
eliminated. Can we save money by
eliminating slide projector? Have
available if needed on emergency basis. 2c. Screen was difficult to see in some rooms. Always get high enough so everyone can see
bottom of screen. Setup in front of
room rather than corner if possible. 2d. Provide adequate water for speakers in all meeting rooms. 3. Adjust to more comfortable temperature 4. The teams should not have been practicing near the meeting
rooms, but it took a while to get everyone to move out. The conference center should have had
better oversight and prevented this problem. 5. Provide web site download with acceptable backgrounds and
slide formats to show up well in lighted rooms (Most people prefer lights on
in meeting rooms to be able to take notes). 6. Change current procedures. |
Adequacy
of Space for Posters
|
Concerns/Comments |
Potential Solutions |
|
1. “Sessions dedicated to posters without competing oral
sessions were a good improvement.” 2. ”Aisles too narrow” (12-15 feet) 3.”More signs to assist in location of specific posters” was a
concern of a few attendees. |
1. Continue this format 2. Increased participation by attendees in the poster sessions
dictates wider rows. (18-21 feet). This may cost more if additional space
needs to be rented but the cost is unquestionably worth it for those who
attend the poster session. Sometimes
it is as easy as informing the FASS staff of adequate space requirements for
posters. E.g. At Indianapolis,
posters were crowded even though there was a large area of open space next to
the poster area. 3. Add this information at the entrance to the poster area. |
Adequacy of area for exhibits
|
Background information |
|
1.
Exhibits were displayed for the first
2 days of the meeting 2.
Cost of exhibit space a.
Corner $1200 b.
Non-corner $1000 c.
Corporate member $
800 3.
Total number of exhibits 2000 74 2001 97 (ADSA, AMSA, ASAS and PSA joint
meeting) 2002 62 2003 63 |
|
Concerns/Comments |
Potential Solutions |
|
1. Greater than 95% indicated
excellent or acceptable. The specific
comments indicated areas of potential improvement. 2. Exhibits were displayed only for
the first 2 days of the meeting. This
shortened period was a request from some of the exhibitors. Many attendees answering the survey would
have liked the exhibits to remain up longer.
3. There were several comments about
the reduced number of exhibitors compared to previous years. |
2b.
Can better attendance at the exhibit area be encouraged by leaving the
exhibits open 1 hour longer in the afternoon? Plus encouraging exhibitors to provide refreshments (e.g.
Alltech broke out a keg in the late afternoon – very popular!!). This could also provide more opportunity
to view posters.
3. Form an ad hoc committee to
determine if exhibitor’s needs are being met. a. Is
the shorter time for display what most exhibitors want? Should we allow exhibitors to remain set
up for the entire meeting if they chose to do so? b. Is
the charge for exhibit space priced correctly compared to other scientific
meetings? c. Some
exhibitors were concerned about unexpected costs (e.g. Paying convention
center for use of chairs at the exhibit).
Should there be more communication about what is and is not included
in the rental price for an exhibit space? d. Can
setup and take down be made more convenient? e.
Committee should include both members and exhibitors. |
Quality
of Presentations
|
Concerns/Comments |
Potential Solutions |
|
1. Many positive comments were listed, but there is less
continuity in these than in comments listed in other sections of the
questionnaire. 2. “Too many posters with small print created by having too much
information on the poster.” 3. “Some session chairs failed to keep session on schedule; some
of this was due to problems with changing laptop computers.” 4. “Posters not presented and too many presenters not present
during the designated time.” |
2. Remind poster presenters of the value of following a standard
format and that with greater attendance at poster session comes greater need
for quality. 3. Eliminate use of multiple computers during a session. Remind
session chairs of their responsibility to control the scheduled
presentations. 4. Remind poster presenters of their responsibilities. |
New
poster format
|
Concerns/Comments |
Potential Solutions |
|
1. “An
excellent innovation” 2.”Prefer an alternate time” and a few suggested split poster
sessions with 1 hr in the morning and 1 hr in the afternoon. 3.”Posters were removed too early” was a concern of a few
attendees. |
1. Continue this format 2. Mid-day and late afternoon or late afternoon with refreshments
was suggested by a number of respondents. Split poster sessions are more
difficult to schedule. FASS staff suggested dividing the day into three 3-hr
blocks (8-11, 11-2 and 2-5) with posters from 11-1 and lunch from 1-2. 3. Remind poster presenters of their responsibilities. |
“My Program”
|
Concerns/Comments |
Potential Solutions |
|
1. There were substantial improvements over last year. 2.Only half of the respondents used “My Program”, several
indicated difficulty using “My Program” 3. Small percentage still would like abstract book mailed before
meeting. 4.There were several specific comments on areas needing
improvement in “My Program” |
1. Continue improvements each year based on survey inputs. 2. Set up a hot line to call for those needing help. Perhaps ask some graduate students in
return for waived registration fee.
3. Allow them to check this option at registration but charge
the full cost of handling and mailing. 4. Would recommend that the FASS staff work with the program
committee to make further improvements and test out the changes before making
available to the general membership. Suggested areas of change: a. Print full abstract for each paper selected in “My Program” b. Automatically eliminate multiple selection of the same paper. c. Make the deletion/edit process more user friendly. Allow multiple deletions. d. Several reports of loss of a partially completed program e. “Comments/notes/personal appointments” should be added on the
appropriate day/time f. Modify printout to eliminate unneeded information, borders,
use smaller font, etc. to save paper. g. Some computer systems had difficulty printing h. Print map of convention facilities/rooms as part of “My
Program” i. Send email when “My Program” is available on-line |
Cyber
cafe
|
Concerns/Comments |
Potential Solutions |
|
1. “Long
lines”
2. “Unable to get data ports to work” 3. Cyber café listed as highly desirable by many, but the format
provided was not regarded as an asset of the meeting. |
1. Provide more computers. Have separate areas for computers
provided by FASS and data ports for individual computers. Place multiple
signs near computers reminding users of the need to restrict their time to 10
minutes. 2. Provide laminated instructions that are affixed near data
ports. Provide instructions to registrants before the meeting. Provide
wireless access. 3. Solicit sponsorship of the Cyber Café from a local provider
by providing free booth space and advertisement in exchange for providing
computers, data ports, wireless access and overseeing maintenance of the
equipment. |
General meeting comments
|
Concerns/Comments |
Potential Solutions |
|
1.
There were several comments about liking the meeting and appreciating
the helpful on-site FASS staff. 2.
“Meeting is too expensive” was the greatest complaint by a large
margin. This is a real concern and
needs to be addressed by the Boards. 3. Placement center needs improvement! 4.“Need to reconsider social events” a. Picnic b. Accompanying person program c. Youth program d. Hospitality room e. Golf
outing f. These are particularly important for international attendees 5. Require all speakers to load
presentations on a single computer prior to the session. 6. Pre-meeting information on the
following topics: a. Tour
opportunities, travel brochures b.
Transportation, airport to hotels, driving instructions to hotels c. Day
and hour of first and last event to allow flight schedule planning d.
Instructions to chairs standard policy for session computer use e.
Instructions to chairs standard policy for staying on schedule |
1.Thanks to staff for good work 2a. Provide visible value for the cost
wherever possible. (e.g. A large registration fee with inadequate
refreshments was a big negative.
Provide plenty of chairs and tables in the lobby area so that
attendees can easily find a place to sit down.) 2b. Provide locations where members
like to vacation (eg. Denver) or are easily accessible by car to save travel
expense (e.g. Indianapolis) 2c. Communicate to members that even
university locations are now expensive. 2d. Look at ways of disseminating the
scientific information less expensively to those not able to attend the
meeting (e.g. Real time transmission of symposia via the Web.) 2e. Recommendations on economy lodging
away from convention area for those on a tight budget. (Some people stayed at Econo Lodge and
drove to the meeting. It worked very
well for them) 3a. Get PSA involved in organizing the
St. Louis meeting placement center.
They have the best procedure of the three societies. Copy their procedures in subsequent years. 4a. Re-institute the Host
Committee. E.g. The host committee
organized all these events at Indianapolis. 4b. These are not expensive but take
organizational time
5a. Eliminates technical problems
associated with switching computers between talks. 6a. Provide this information earlier 6b. Another job for the Host Committee |