Hi Gerard
I have thought about your question for a few days.......
I think that there is very substantial risk in thinking that you are going to get representative information by using a set of questions where you say it only takes 2 o 3 minutes to respond.
My instinci is that this approach is going to give you respondents who are skewed towards those who are using plenty of digital solutions to aspects of health and safety management such as risk assessments and thence SOPs or SSoWs.
Now suppose a respondent to your question set has a job title "Health and Safety Manager".
They could well have been the person who got the sales pitch from the company selling a software solution and who has then persuaded their bosses to spend the money on this wonder product.
Even if the product has been a disaster, is this person going to want to admit it?
I recently read someone's MSc thesis. Overall a not dissimilar topic - the effectiveness of a behavioural safety program on site. Even if one ignored the fact that it was probable that the respondents would work out what the researcher was trying to "prove" and give the answers that they thought wouid help with that "proof", the results as reported were nonsense in terms of recognising the need to consider statistical significance.
Small sample sizes, so the Standard Deviations (which WERE reported) were relatively large.
The report categorised the answers to a small number of questions (that may be wouldn't take that much more than 2-3 minutes to answer!) in four coloured blocks - GREEN (happy) to RED (BAD!!).
Plenty of the answers came back GREEN, which would keep the bosses paying both the researcher and the respondents happy.
One problem was that the research was a bit more in depth and invited respondents to add textual comment and this was where some of the managers were honest enought to admit that they were not really owning H&S and were NOT doing some of the things they were supposed to do - thence explaining a couple of RED categorisations of answers to QQ asked.
Good in a way as it meant that the researcher could make some suggestions as to room for improvement to get those REDs looking GREENer. After all the person paying for this might want something concrete for their money, and not just a glowing bill of health?
However, on every single question the result would move at least one colour zone with just a single Standard Deviation, quite a probable scenario. On every single question that resulted in a GREEN categorisation the outcome would be overturned to RED with less than two Standard Deviations - i.e the variance usually applied to enable 95% statistical significance. Ditto for all the results that come out RED!!!
I think you might find much more useful stuff to inform your research by simply scrolling through these Forums or e.g. threads on LinkedIn to find out what has been discussed on numerous occasions about the pros and cons of the digital solutions to H&S management that have become so in vogue.