Project BackgroundMeasurement timetable
Finalized questionnaire August 1, 2011
Data collection via webSending invitations spanned the first two weeks.
Sending reminders spanned the last two weeks. The survey was in the field for a longer time this year for resending invitations.
September 12, 2011 – October 18, 2011
Topline results October 26, 2011
Results briefing November 29, 2011
Project BackgroundData collectionRespondents
• 3,996 responses were received• 3,996 responses were used for modeling
E-mail addresses from lists associated with some of the data centers were included to reach the large number of users who may have accessed data via anonymous ftp.
Data Center Description
Original CleanedEmailed a
Survey Invitation
Bounce Backs Responded Response Rate
ASDC–LaRC 2350 2350 2349 135 194 9%ASF SAR DAAC 1371 1370 1364 108 172 14%
CDDIS 1302 1275 1271 468 95 12%GES DISC 1551 1544 1533 357 97 8%
GHRC 678 674 670 81 69 12%LP DAAC 25503 25490 25475 1477 1849 8%
MODAPS LAADS 6939 6839 6805 482 484 8%NSIDC DAAC 5487 5487 5468 619 398 8%
OBPG/Ocean Color 4893 4893 4891 721 200 5%ORNL DAAC/FLUXNET 3988 3976 3966 197 229 6%
PO.DAAC-JPL 1361 1352 1348 103 85 7%SEDAC 2728 2728 2724 148 124 5%Total 58151 57978 57864 4896 3996 8%
NASA Survey Responses
Those who answered for
more than one data center:
Two: 103
Three: 14
Four: 2
NASA EOSDIS BenchmarksStrong performance continues …
ACSI (Overall) is updated on a quarterly basis, with specific industries/sectors measured annually.Federal Government (Overall) is updated on an annual basis and data collection is done in Q3.Quarterly scores are based on a calendar timeframe: Q1- Jan through March; Q2 – April through June; Q3 – July through Sept.; Q4 – Oct. through Dec.
75
77
65
76
30 40 50 60 70 80
News & Information Sites(Public Sector) 2011
NASA EOSDIS - Aggregate 2011
Federal Government (Overall) 2010
ACSI (Overall) Q2 2011
2005 2007 20082004 20092006 2010 2011
NASA EOSDISCustomer satisfaction remains steady
Ideal
How close does [DAAC] come to the ideal organization?
Overall satisfaction
How satisfied are you with the data products and services
provided by [DAAC]?
Expectations
To what extent have data products and services provided by [DAAC]
fallen short of or exceeded expectations?
ACSI
76
82
73
78 75
80
73
73
77
81
74
7571
79
73
75
(+/-) 0.9 (+/-) 0.7 (+/-) 0.6 (+/-) 0.5
N=1016 N=1263 N=2291 N=2601
77
81
73
75
(+/-) 0.4
N=3842
72
78
71
74
(+/-) 0.5
N=2857
77
81
74
75
(+/-) 0.4
N=4390
77
81
74
75
(+/-) 0.4
N=3996
NASA EOSDIS ModelProduct Search/Selection/Documentation most critical
The performance of each component on a 0 to 100 scale. Component scores are made up of the weighted average of the corresponding survey questions.
Scores
The change in target variable that results from a five point change in a component score. For example, a 5-point gain in Product Search would yield a 0.9-point improvement in Satisfaction.
Impacts
Customer Satisfaction
Index
Future Use
Recommend
Sample Size: 3996
77
89
87
Customer Support
86
1.7
Product Search
75
0.9
Product Quality78
0.4
Product Documentation
76
0.9
Product Selection and
Order
77
1.1
3.2
3.8
Delivery81
0.4
User background and interestsquestions
User background and interestsquestions
Have you searched, ordered,
downloaded data?
Have you searched, ordered,
downloaded data?
Did you look for or get
documentation?
Did you look for or get
documentation?
Have you reported
a problem?
Have you reported
a problem?
Have you requested assistance
from customer services?
Have you requested assistance
from customer services?
Search questionsSearch questions
Rate searchRate
search
Order questionsOrder questions
DeliveryquestionsDelivery
questions
Formatquestions
Formatquestions
Usagequestions
Usagequestions
Did you get help 1st time?Did you get
help 1st time?
Customer Service
questions
Customer Service
questions
Documentationquestions
Documentationquestions
Rate delivery
Rate delivery
Rate customer service
Rate customer service
Rate problem resolution
Rate problem resolution
Rate orderRate order
Rate formatRate
format
Rate documentation
Rate documentation
ACSI standard 3 questions
ACSI standard 3 questions
ACSI outcomes 2 questions
ACSI outcomes 2 questions
• Blue boxes designate general survey areas• White boxes indicate rating questions• Embedded skips are shown with arrows
2011 EOSDIS Survey Overview
Did not search
Thank you!Thank you!
no
Did not order
no
no
no
User background and interestsquestions
User background and interestsquestions
Have you searched, ordered,
downloaded data?
Have you searched, ordered,
downloaded data?
Did you look for or get
documentation?
Did you look for or get
documentation?
Have you reported
a problem?
Have you reported
a problem?
Have you requested assistance
from customer services?
Have you requested assistance
from customer services?
Search questionsSearch questions
Rate searchRate
search
Order questionsOrder questions
DeliveryquestionsDelivery
questions
Formatquestions
Formatquestions
Usagequestions
Usagequestions
Did you get help 1st time?Did you get
help 1st time?
Customer Service
questions
Customer Service
questions
Documentationquestions
Documentationquestions
Rate delivery
Rate delivery
Rate customer service
Rate customer service
Rate problem resolution
Rate problem resolution
Rate orderRate order
Rate formatRate
format
Rate documentation
Rate documentation
ACSI standard 3 questions
ACSI standard 3 questions
ACSI outcomes 2 questions
ACSI outcomes 2 questions
• Blue boxes designate general survey areas• White boxes indicate rating questions• Embedded skips are shown with arrows
2011 EOSDIS Survey Overview
Did not search
Thank you!Thank you!
no
Did not order
no
no
no
39963996
3673367329542954
NASA EOSDIS 2008 – 2011 Scores hold steady; no change more than one point
=Significant Difference vs. 2010
(+/-) 0.4
(+/-) 0.9
(+/-) 0.5
(+/-) 0.5
(+/-) 0.5
(+/-) 0.5
(+/-) 0.6
77
86
81
78
77
76
75
77
86
80
77
77
76
76
77
85
81
77
76
77
75
77
84
81
74
77
75
75
Customer Satisfaction Index
Customer Support
Delivery
Product Quality
Product Selection and Order
Product Documentation
Product Search
2011 2010 2009 2008
Product QualityOne-point gain from last year
Impact=0.4
78
78
77
77
77
77
74
74
Product Quality
Ease of using the data product in the delivered format
2011 2010 2009 2008
=Significant Difference vs. 2010
Product QualityPreferences somewhat in line with what provided
~Multiple responses allowed
Format data products were provided Format preferred~HDF-EOS/HDF 53% HDF-EOS/HDF 40%NetCDF 13% NetCDF 20%Binary 9% Binary 12%ASCII 17% ASCII 24%GeoTIFF 41% GeoTIFF 53%JPEG, GIF, PNG, TIFF 15% JPEG, GIF, PNG, TIFF 18%OGC Web services 1% OGC Web services 4%GIS 8% GIS 23%KML, KMZ 5% KML, KMZ 13%CEOS 2% CEOS 2%Don´t know 4% OPeNDAP 2%Other format 2% Other preferred format 3%Number of Respondents 3,673 Number of Respondents 3,673
In 2010, 57% said products were provided in HDF-EOS and HDF and 42% said they
were their preferred method.
GeoTIFF is most preferred format, while HDF-EOS/HDF is format in which products were provided the most. Only 8% of products provided in GIS although nearly one-quarter prefer that format.
2011 EOSDIS Survey Flow Overview - CLB
HDF-EOS/HDF FormatTools used when data was provided in HDF format
~Multiple responses allowed
Many of the respondents (687) selected ‘Other’ and listed alternate tool names or described custom approaches. Of these respondents 69 selected 'other‘ exclusively.
Tools used with HDF Number %ENVI 867 44%ArcGIS 818 42%ERDAS 493 25%IDL 509 26%MATLAB 512 26%MODIS Reprojection Tool 506 26%SeaDAS 163 8%Geomatica® 73 4%Global Mapper 123 6%IDRISI 144 22%HDFView 438 22%HEG 109 6%NCL 42 2%GrADS 96 5%Other (Please specify) 303 15%
Number of HDF-EOS/HDF respondents 1961
2011 EOSDIS Survey Flow Overview - CLB
Experience with HDF Mostly high ratings but some “Ease of Use” problems
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Num
ber o
f Res
pond
ents
Ratings (10 = Excellent)
HDF Users Experience Ratings
Ease of Use Quality of Product Usability of Data
Over 60% of the respondents rated all three areas as
8, 9 or 10..
• Survey respondents provided ~ 90 comments about their experience with HDF format, for example pertaining to– Search method
“I found all of the HDF-4 files I needed easily, and in small sizes too which was a plus.”
– Order processing“A mosaicking option for all data sets would be nice”
– Preferences“Please no more HDF4 with irritating custom extensions”
– What they are not finding“I need data in ASCII format . . . data from HDF is complicated”
– Looking for documentation“Format Conversion (HDF to netcdf).”
– Over half were voluntary comments or suggestions “ . . . size and complexity (HDF-format) of the data files . . . can be ameliorated
with web services . . . “• Verbatim comments are available for analysis
2011 EOSDIS Survey Flow Overview - CLB
HDF User CommentsComments are both positive and negative
SummarySatisfaction with NASA EOSDIS has held at
77 for four years. NASA continues to meet data users needs.
HDF-EOS/HDF is a well supported format• Not all users are comfortable or satisfied with
HDF• Comments received provide insight into users
effective use and/or problems • Verbatim comments are supplied in separate
word documents.
Comments
Verbatim comments are supplied in separate word documents.
In what format(s) were your data products provided to you? (select any that apply)•Other (please specify and/or comment)
Did you use software tool(s) to work with the data (e.g., format conversion, analysis, visualization, etc.?)
•Yes (Please specify which tool or tools you used to work with the data.)•No, I couldn’t find what I needed (please specify what you were looking for)•No, I couldn’t understand how to use it (please specify what you were trying to use)
Do you have any additional comments or suggestion about possible improvements to data products, services, tools, documentation, or the websites that you would like to share? Are you finding what you need on our websites? (please comment)