Valuing Our Volunteers (Admin Process)


Some of you may have noticed the new HQAC SharePoint Site Valuing Our Volunteers there is the ability to submit ideas/comment on those already submitted as well as sign up to join the team if you feel so inclined.

Today has seen the release of a Survey Monkey asking for peoples thoughts on the perceived Admin Burden, the opening comments of which are below;

As part of the Valuing our Volunteers (VoV) initiative, we would like to understand your perception of the administrative burden placed upon you as volunteers in the RAF Air Cadets. This survey is intended to allow CFAV to express where they believe the burden originates and assist the Admin Process Management Team in identifying and addressing some of the key areas of concern.

Given that we are conscious that the Admin Burden effects everyone, Permanent Staff are also invited to complete the survey.

There are a total of 24 questions, a mix of multiple choice & comments. Let’s try and make our lives easier.


We can give it a go, but knowing how they’ve analysed surveys in the past, you hold little hope of positive changes. I know from analysing data from similar questionnaires and surveys for many years you invariably get a central tendency to questions which doesn’t result in any changes as it seems everything is rosy, so you need to honestly drill down into the comments. The only way to effect a change is to answer strongly negative in each one, so that the results are unequivocal, supported by suitable comments.

The very fact there is felt a need to have an initiative call Valuing our Volunteers, says it all really. If they did, they wouldn’t need a survey to find out how to value us.


I’ve filled it in. I’ve got no idea if it will get through (on submission, the form reset to a blank form, rather than any kind of ‘Thank you’ message).

It was very cathartic though!


Mine ended with a 1/1 score - there was a DONE icon to close things out.


Thanks! Might try again!


A waste of time. We’ve had admin birder surveys. They set up an admin burger reductions team which got renamed to admin process management team and the TORs revised because they challenged HQAC dross too much.


But as I say above you need to answer the right way to deliver the message and avoid the central tendency when you assign a number to the answer and do the analysis.
On a 5 point scale if the majority people answer 2, 3 or 4 then you end up with a score of between 2.5 and 3.5 and those looking at the results think carry on as usual. I tend to graph scores which can identify extremes and then go through comments and pull points from those and as given these are only ever completed properly by a minority all points need to be taken into account. Something I suspect in analysis HQAC don’t do if it as you say challenges their perception of what the world looks like and what they and their paymasters want it to look like.


ooo quick another survey… let me just check my busy schedule…mmmm might be able to squeeze it in between my cutting my toenails and sweeping my garage floor!!


In all the “excitement” of the CFC, I’ve only just noticed that the survey results have been published.
There are some really good points made from the people who responded.

Nice to to see that I’m not the only one who dislikes the first class logbook system!


Ooh I hadn’t seen these. Time for some reading :slight_smile:


Link if you have Sharepoint access.

Pretty clear how people feel!


Going to take some work to go through that and pull out clear strands to work on…




There will be a new ATCO working group - “Axe the Cr@p Out.” :wink:


Does that refer to the crap systems etc or identifying the CFAV who don’t think it’s all wonderful and get rid of them?


Primarily at the systems, but if (as per the very recent CI thread), it helps move a few (out) onto new grazing pastures… :wink:


I hate the first class logbooks.It slows down and in fact eliminates learning as all your doing is effectively telling the cadet what to write in the book and then signing it off.I much preferred the old system where the sqn set the exam and it was a genuine test of ability.


You could always do that anyway and then just have a 30 min session telling them exactly what to put in the book and signing it off with backdated dates…


It’s a lot of signatures in one hit! I counted them, and IIRC, it’s 98 signatures, without the merit or distinction sections.


True. Get a rubber stamp of your signature?? They won’t query that right?