1. Role of Account Management at ERCOT 2005 Meeting Management Support Survey Review For 2006 Subcommittees

2. Introduction Survey was designed to: –Gather perceptions of ERCOT Staff’s support of committee, working group and task force meetings. –Evaluate the efforts collectively made by Staff and stakeholders to make these meetings more effective for all participants. Survey sent to 57 Chair and Vice-Chairs of committees, working groups and task forces. –61% response rate 29 members of Task Force and Working Group leadership 6 members of Subcommittee leadership

3. Introduction Scale Utilized: –Many questions were asked using a 7-point scale. 1 means not at all effective 7 means extremely effective “Top Two” – ranking of 6 or 7 considered very effective “Bottom Two” – ranking of 1 or 2 considered very ineffective Respondents answering “Don’t Know” to the topic being analyzed were excluded from the statistical base for the calculation of the mean response.

4. Summary of Survey Findings

5. Meeting the needs of the Texas Electricity Market Nearly half of respondents rate the effectiveness of the ERCOT stakeholder process in meeting the needs of the Texas Electric Market as very effective; three percent rate it as very ineffective. Subcommittee leadership finds the stakeholder process to be more effective in meeting needs of the electricity market. Mean Top Two Bottom Two All (n=35)5.349%3% TF/WG (n=29) 5.241%3% Subcommittee (n=6) 5.783% Scale: 1=not at all effective, 7=extremely effective

6. Meeting the needs of Chairs & Vice-Chairs 60% of respondents rate the ERCOT stakeholder process as very effective in meeting their needs; 3% rate it as very ineffective. Subcommittee leadership finds the stakeholder process to be more effective in meeting their needs. Many of TF/WG leadership who feel that the ERCOT stakeholder process is not effective in meeting their needs point to inadequate support from ERCOT staff. Mean Top Two Bottom Two Don’t Know All (n=35)5.560%3%6% TF/WG (n=29) 5.455%3%7% Subcommittee (n=6) 6.083% Scale: 1=not at all effective, 7=extremely effective

7. Effectiveness of Meeting Management Support Model Processes Effective Needs Improvement Not Sure Meeting Day Coordination (i.e., minutes, meeting set-up) 89%11%- Meeting Infrastructure (i.e., meeting spaces, posting on web) 86%14%- Voting Administration (i.e., email voting, notice of voting items, voting management) 83%14%3% Agenda (i.e., development, planning call, distribution) 77%23%- ERCOT Meeting Prep (i.e., advance distribution, quality, & timeliness of meeting materials) 69%31%- Post Meeting (i.e., minutes, post updated presentations, track action items) 69%31%- MP Meeting Prep (i.e., follow-up with presenters, post presentation on web) 63%31%6%

8. Agenda Of those noting need for improvement, cite need for ERCOT to more clearly define its role in the process and the need for more realistic agendas Effective Needs Improvement Not Sure All (n=35)77%23%- TF/WG (n=29) 72%28%- Subcommittee (n=6) 100%--

9. ERCOT Meeting Preparation Of those noting need for improvement, suggest that the timeliness of meeting agenda availability could improve. Others would like to see appropriate ERCOT SMEs attend meetings more frequently. Effective Needs Improvement Not Sure All (n=35)69%31%- TF/WG (n=29) 66%34%- Subcommittee (n=6) 83%17%-

10. Post Meeting Respondents call for improved post meeting support (i.e., meeting minutes, materials, and other follow-up communications distributed in a more timely manner). Effective Needs Improvement Not Sure All (n=35)69%31%- TF/WG (n=29) 66%34%- Subcommittee (n=6) 83%17%-

11. MP Meeting Preparation Respondents call for improved MP meeting preparation (i.e., more consistent level of preparation among MPs) Effective Needs Improvement Not Sure All (n=35)63%31%6% TF/WG (n=29) 62%34%3% Subcommittee (n=6) 67%17%

12. Effectiveness of ERCOT Staff Market Meeting Support Mean Top Two Bottom Two Don’t Know Providing preparation of ERCOT presentations 5.554%-6% Providing timely & precise communication (i.e., agendas, voting items & results, mtg minutes) with MPs 5.457%-3% Providing the right resources given the agenda 5.451%-3% Achieving consistent execution of market meeting support 5.449%3%6% Effectively meeting the needs of MPs 5.446%-3% Providing appropriate levels of ERCOT staff participation 5.046%11%3% Scale: 1=not at all effective, 7=extremely effective

13. Overall Effectiveness of the Meeting Management Support Model Overall, leadership generally finds the model to be effective as nearly half of respondents rated the model as very or extremely effective while no respondents provided a rating below 3 on a 7-point scale. Subcommittee leadership finds the meeting management approach to be more effective than TF/WG respondents Mean Top Two Bottom Two Don’t Know All (n=35)5.549%-3% TF/WG (n=29) 5.441%-3% Subcommittee (n=6) 5.883%- Scale: 1=not at all effective, 7=extremely effective

14. Biggest Advantages & Areas for Improvement Respondents most often cite improved consistency & organization of meetings, communications, and meeting materials & activities as the most significant improvements from the new approach. Need for more consistent & comprehensive support from ERCOT SMEs Need for improved meeting productivity Determine exactly whom is responsible for tracking minutes/notes and actually producing the agenda seems to be an undecided issue. 60% of respondents indicate the most important improvement would be the establishment of a tracking mechanism for agenda items, workflows, and next steps that come out of market meetings. 23% of respondents feel that starting each agenda call with feedback from last meeting would be an important improvement. 17% of respondents would like to see a quick checkpoint survey at end of all meetings.

15. What can we do to improve the meeting management concept?