gathering & presenting user input

Jeff WisniewskiWeb Services & Communications LibrarianUniversi ty of Pi ttsburghjeff w@pitt .edu@jeff wisniewski

GATHERING AND PRESENTING (AND

ACTING ON) USER INPUT

THE PROCESS

From: Design Thinking Toolkit http://www.b-21.org/design-thinking-toolkit-2/

A process, not a thingExplicit (what they say)Implicit (what they do)Active (surveying)Passive (website analytics)OnlineOffl ine

FEEDBACK IS…

No news is good newsNo complaints= happy usersThe complaints you hear are the only onesAnecdotal evidence is not biasedBuild it and they will come

BAD ASSUMPTIONS

WHAT we didHOW we did itWHY we did itPROS and CONSWhat we LEARNED

METHODOLOGIES

Print questionnaire/diary hybrid

Goal: discover how and why students use the building to help facilities and services planning

MY DAY

Three parts: Entrance (motivation)During (activities)Exit (achievements)

169 responses (65% response rate)Incentive: $2.00 café gift card

METHODOLOGY

Pro: Mostly structured dataPro: Demographic data allows for deeper

analysisPro: Contact information allows for direct

follow up as appropriateCon: Survey design and design of survey

time consumingCon: unstructured data time consuming to

code and analyze

PROS AND CONS

Most respondents accomplished their goals for the visit

Many respondents reported that they visited library to undertake group or social activities

Respondents selected Hillman for its convenient location and good study atmosphere

FINDINGS

Library is primarily a before or after class destination

A majority of respondents visit daily40% visit more than once a day40% spend between 30 min and 2 hrs, 40%

more than two hoursLess than 10% come for library specific

things: finding materials, getting help, etc.

FINDINGS

What could we do better?More power outletsStronger wi-fiMore seating and more tables

FINDINGS

FURNITURE MOVEMENT STUDY

Photographic study of movement of furniture over time in select spaces

Seeking to determine: occupancy of specific quadrants, use patterns, to assist in space planning decisions

METHODOLOGY

METHODOLOGY

Pro: deeper understanding of space utilization than aggregate use information can provide

Pro: visual analysis of data not burdensome; no number crunching

Con: Pre-selected universe for analysis. Did we miss something?

Con: Labor intensive data gathering

PROS AND CONS

Information to help in scheduling least disruptive programming, repairs, renovations

The “weekend” begins on our campus on Thursday

Make it movable, or they willLower use quadrants oh high use floors as

spaces for new services

FINDINGS

FLIPCHARTS

Seek to learn what users like and dislike about various spaces

Flipcharts and markers placed in 14 locations in building

2 weeks in March and 2 weeks in AprilSheets collected dailyResults analyzed

METHODOLOGY

Pro: Quick, easy, cheap to implementPro: Unfiltered feedbackCon: Analysis of fully unstructured data time

consumingCon: No demographic dataCon: No ability to directly follow up

PROS AND CONS

They want wi-fi , outlets, and better climate control

They HATE these:

WHAT WE LEARNED

FLIPCHARTS FOR INTERNAL USE

Annual inclusive planning process

Discussion and study groups convene, discuss, debate, and propose strategic actions

Scented stickers for voting for strategic options, because why not?

Exercise to investigate faculty opinions regarding the ULS and awareness of faculty-focused products and services

BRAND PERCEPTION STUDY

Discussion GroupsThree Groups of Faculty Discuss perceptions of the ULS, services, staff ,

communications and messaging Sessions transcribed and transcripts analyzed

Follow Up Interviews with Selected Faculty

METHODOLOGY

The good: All faculty find the library staff to be “extremely

exceptional” and able to respond to their requests Librarians and staff are highly respected and valued

and are clearly a strength Faculty are eager to have a more collegial

relationship with librarians There is a strong desire among faculty for hands-on

library led workshops

WHAT WE LEARNED

The bad: Faculty awareness of many ULS services is low The ULS is starting to feel too "corporate" with a

company-customer feel instead of a collegial partnership

Faculty would like librarians to proactively suggest solutions without feeling like they are being "sold"

WHAT WE LEARNED

Pro: Rich, unfi ltered informationPro: Direct engagement with facultyCon: Time consuming to plan, conduct, transcribe,

analyze

PROS AND CONS

“For faculty and students, it really boils down to your relationship with the librarians. If you utilize them, you will have success.”  

David SanchezCivil and Environmental

Engineering Department

DID YOU KNOW…

We can consult with you about the management of your research data?

“The ULS should be a destination site... It’s full of

treasures including a wealth of collections and archives

for visitors to enjoy. I also think the social aspect of the

library—with the coffee shop and collaboration areas—is

extraordinary and extremely healthy. You really feel a

strong sense of community in the library.”  

Ellen Cohn Communications Science

and Disorders Department

We have tools to help you demonstrate the impact of your research?

Did you know…

“The fact the ULS helps to fund open access publishing is quite valuable to me as I publish journals in multidisciplinary areas. But the staff is also helpful with all of my needs, whether it’s with publishing, ordering books or requesting journals.” 

Ervin Sejdic Electrical and Computer Engineering Department

Google analytics Campaigns for measuring channelsContent grouping for evaluating success of certain types of content

iPad surveyingCommunication channel effectivenessProgramming analysis

How did you hear? More like this?

ONLINE

“Campaigns” to assess effectiveness of communication channels

“Content Grouping” to assess effectiveness of various types of content

GOOGLE ANALYTICS

Assess effectiveness of communication channels (email, PDF flyer, web page, etc)

Online asset tagged with special code; GA collects information

GOOGLE ANALYTICS: CAMPAIGNS

www.library.pitt.edu/googlebooks

Parameters:utm_campaignutm_sourceUtm_medium Campaign URL Builder: https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/1033867?hl=en

GOOGLE ANALYTICS: CAMPAIGNS

Campaign= googlebooksSource=campus_portalMedium=pdf_flyer

GOOGLE ANALYTICS: CAMPAIGNS

www.library.pitt.edu/googlebooks/?=utm=campaign=googlebooks&utm_medium=pdf_flyer&utm_source=campus_p

ortal

The big picture is too big to be informativeDifferent perspectives for different content

types

Example: time on page (average):

Blogs, reviews, essays (engagement content)= HIGH

Database descriptions, login pages (portal content)=LOW

GOOGLE ANALYTICS: CONTENT GROUPING

The big picture is too big to be informativeDifferent perspectives for different content types

Example: time on page (average):

Blogs, reviews, essays (engagement content)= HIGHDatabase descriptions, login pages (portal

content)=LOW

https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/2853423?hl=en

GOOGLE ANALYTICS: CONTENT GROUPING

IN THE FIELD SURVEYING USING IPADS

Created online survey using QualtricsDesktop shortcut on iPadAsked:

Name Email Department/major How did you hear about Should we do this again Can we follow up with you

METHODOLOGY

WHAT WE LEARNED

WHAT WE LEARNED

WHAT WE LEARNED

To my Communications teamTo our Offi ce of Strategic Assessment

THANKS

Questions? Comments? Things to share?

jeffw@pitt.edu@jeffwisniewski

THANK YOU!