Some months ago I engaged in a somewhat vitriolic discussion with David Snowden on the worth of surveys . My position was, and remains, that surveys have their place in research. David's position at the time was - "I do think that in the vast majority of cases randomly completing surveys has equal validity to attempting honesty ...". Now I do try to be honest when completing a survey and I diligently respond to almost every survey I receive. However last Friday I adopted the David Snowden random completion method! Why?

Well firstly completion of the survey was compulsory. Secondly the survey was in two parts, with a total of 22 sections. There were just over 230 questions, which somehow I was supposed to complete in less than 45 minutes - get real! At the end I was supposed to apportion the time I allocate on a daily basis to each surveyed task. Just to add insult in injury my supervisor is supposed to review my answers, and can amend my answers! Where is the ethics in this? And to add further insult I am supposed to review and amend the survey responses of my "subordinates". What a joke!

The David Snowden random completion method came in handy: down the left hand side on the first page; down the middle on the second; a zigzag on the third; down the right of the fourth; and so on until complete. It still took 20 minutes, but at least I derived some comic relief. All my subordinates underestimated their work allocation on a variable basis by up to 125% - I hope they all get a pay rise!

The take home lesson is survey design matters! Poor design will lead to poor results. Hopeless design will lead to stupid results. I can't wait to read the report and recommendations arising from this survey!

Regards Graham