Analysis of the PARDC Feedback Gathering Method for Field Testing of MAT DEV Prototypes: The Case of the Meal, Ready-To-Eat Ration

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the feedback gathering method among the end users of Materiel Development (Mat Dev) prototypes developed by the Philippine Army Research and Development Center (PARCDC). The resources of the PARDC allocated for field test questionnaire administration were also assessed. These were done to come up with recommendations on how the feedback gathering method can be improved. It tackled the case of the MRE toppings style prototypes distributed to the 2nd Infantry Division, Philippine Army.

The survey employed three methods for data gathering: documentary analysis, personal interview, and survey questionnaire. Documentary analysis involved the examination of reports, logbooks and clearing instruments of the Supply Accountable Officers (SAO). The interview was concluded among researchers of PARDC and the SAO of the various offices concerned in the distribution of prototypes. An interview schedule was used to gather information on how the SAO implemented the transfer of the prototypes from PARDC to the end users. A survey using self-administered questionnaire was done to field test participants purposively chosen by the researcher to find out their comments and preference on how their feedback should be gathered.

The finding of the study revealed that the PARDC feedback gathering method was too circuitous. The process passed through several layers of offices such that the time consumed in the distribution and collection of questionnaires was considerably long. Respondents preferred personal interviews than self-administered questionnaires. The resources allocated for the field test was also inadequate. All these contributed to the low turnover of field test questionnaires.

Based on the findings, it is recommended that other more effective and efficient ways must be employed to improve the PARDC feedback gathering method. Since the results of the study indicate that almost all the respondents wished to talk with the researcher than answer a questionnaire, then the instrument might have to be changed from a self-administered questionnaire to an interview schedule or focus group discussion. The latter may be the best alternative as it can respond to the respondents’ desire for a more interpersonal discussion and it would entail lesser cost than interview schedule.