[Board] Preliminary Survey Results

Fri Sep 23 05:17:44 PDT 2011

Chris,

Good point, but I'd expect that we could rubber stamp the Denver conference and match or exceed this year's number.  Colorado is a geospatial center for the US.  I think the break even target for this year was somewhere around 500, so it would be prudent to target that or slightly higher.  As government budgets get whacked I'm expecting a lot more interest from government agencies.  In any case, it was a very successful conference and this years attendees will help spread the word.

Mark

On Sep 23, 2011, at 7:13 AM, christopher.schmidt at nokia.com wrote:

> 
> On Sep 22, 2011, at 10:37 PM, ext Mark Lucas wrote:
> 
>> Yep, and that is just returning attendees.  67% were new attendees for 2011.  So it would seem we could easily duplicate the 900 attendees at this years conference.
> 
> I don't think it works like that.
> 
> FOSS4G was in the US for the first time in a long time; the space itself has changed
> drastically since 2004 (or even 2007) when it was last practical to attend
> the conf. for a lot of people.
> 
> I think that the new market for attendees was huge this year, but I don't
> think it's fair to extrapolate that it will *always* be that big;
> I think that imagining the market/space will grow by as much between 
> 2011->2012 as it did between 2007 and 2011 is a pretty big 
> expectation.
> 
> I would start with mpg's numbers and go up slightly, unless you believe there
> is somehow a very large untapped potential that Denver did not address; 
> I think that imagining a 25% growth of new attendees is reasonable, but
> expecting *two thirds* new attendees again would be excessive.
> 
> -- Chris
> 
>> Mark
>> 
>> On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:34 PM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
>> 
>>> For “likely to attend a FOSS4G in NorAmer next year” (#19), the responses were
>>> 
>>> 1: 10%
>>> 2: 10%
>>> 3: 25%
>>> 4: 20%
>>> 5: 35%
>>> 
>>> Let us assign probabilities to the 1-5 scale like this:
>>> 
>>> 1: 0% (will not attend)
>>> 2: 20% chance of attending
>>> 3: 40%
>>> 4: 60%
>>> 5: 80%
>>> 
>>> Assume 900 attendees at this conference.  Then, we can project the attendance at the postulated local NorAmer conference to be
>>> 
>>> .10(900) * 0 + .10(900) * .20 + .25(900) * .40 + .20(900) * .60 + .35(900) * .80
>>> = 0 + 18 + 90 + 108 + 252
>>> = 468
>>> 
>>> Check my math, but we could be looking at a ~500 person gig.
>>> 
>>> -mpg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Peter Batty
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:02 PM
>>> To: foss4g2011-private; board at lists.osgeo.org; conference
>>> Subject: [Board] Fwd: Preliminary Survey Results
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> Thought I would share a few preliminary results from the post-FOSS4G survey. As James says below, we'll get the data in a better form for analysis once we close the survey. But we got responses from 1/3 of attendees within 24 hours, which is great!
>>> 
>>> A few things I'd highlight:
>>> 
>>> 67% of attendees were at their first FOSS4G
>>> 46% answered 5 to the question how heavily do you currently use geospatial open source, remainder split fairly evenly between 1-4.
>>> 61% were software developers as main job function, 18% end users, 20% managers
>>> Overall rating of FOSS4G was 4.31 on a scale of 1-5, which is impressive!
>>> Highest ranked function was the Wynkoop reception at 4.55.
>>> Quality of presentations was ranked at 4.07.
>>> 72% answered 1 or 2 on how likely they are to be in Beijing, 14% answered 4 or 5.
>>> 57% answered 4 or 5 on attending a "local FOSS4G" if there was one in North America next year.
>>> Of various possible options proposed for future FOSS4Gs, the one involving an annual local conference in North America was the highest rated by some margin (though obviously a sample skewed towards North Americans).
>>> 
>>> We need the more detailed spreadsheet to get scores and comments for individual workshops, I think that will be another important thing to look at in planning for next year.
>>> 
>>> Lots of interesting stuff in the comments too that we can use to make future events better.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>>    Peter.
>>> 
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: James Sakamoto <jsakamoto at gita.org>
>>> Date: Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:36 PM
>>> Subject: Preliminary Survey Results
>>> To: Peter Batty <peter at ebatty.com>
>>> Cc: Bob Samborski <bsamborski at gita.org>, Libby Hanna <lhanna at gita.org>, Patricia Essex <pessex at gita.org>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Pete,
>>> 
>>> Thought we would share the preliminary survey results.  It is still very early but, so far, you almost have 300 (285) responses which would be nearly 33%!!!  That is a tremendous response.  Generally we get about 10-15%.
>>> 
>>> This is just the summarized PDF synopsis.  When the survey closes we should be able to provide you with an Excel formatted report that you can manipulate as you please.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> James
>>> 
>>> James Sakamoto
>>> Senior Education Coordinator
>>> GITA
>>> 14456 East Evans Ave
>>> Aurora, CO 80014
>>> (720) 496-0484
>>> jsakamoto at gita.org
>>> 
>>> October 24-26, GIS for Oil & Gas Pipeline Conference, Houston, TX  www.gita.org/oilgas
>>> 
>>> <image001.jpg>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20110923/48019782/attachment.htm>