DRS Customer Survey 2008

Introduction | Survey Results | OIS Response | Survey Problems

---

Introduction

Participation in this survey was solicited from all individuals who use DRS tools or services (registered users of the DRS web admin, DRS depositors and individuals who receive DRS loader reports). The survey was open from August 20 until September 24, 2008.

The primary purpose of the survey was to evaluate the level of satisfaction with DRS tools, services, and websites. Other goals included understanding any unmet guidance and support needs, and exploring the reasons for performing DRS deletions.

Survey Results

There were 23 responses to the survey. The complete anonymous results are available here in PDF format.

A set of common themes ran through the responses:

• In general DRS users value the DRS for its storage and preservation capabilities and perceive it as stable, secure and a trusted repository. However:
• Users need it to support more formats, especially PDF and video.
• Users need more guidance in terms of preservation formats.
• Users want many improvements to the DRS' management applications, especially the DRS web admin.
• Users need better and easier search and editing functionality.
• Users indicate that improved editing functionality could reduce the amount of DRS deletions.
• Users want improvements to the DRS' delivery capabilities.
• DRS staff needs to pay more attention to the typical/popular third-party applications on users' computers.
• Users want the DRS documentation consolidated and augmented with examples and on-line tutorials.
• Users want more training sessions and data management (preparation, editing, migrating) guidance.

OIS Response

The survey responses contain many specific and general comments that will be used to enhance DRS applications, services and documentation. As described on the DRS 2 enhancements web page, DRS enhancements are being conducted in phases.

Some of the survey-requested enhancements are currently being implemented:

• Support for PDF
  • This has been planned as part of the current DRS enhancement phase - DRS 2.1.
• More preservation format guidance
  • This is planned as part of a redesign of the Digital Preservation Service web pages.

Other survey-requested enhancements had already been planned for 2009:

• Improved search and editing capabilities of DRS metadata and content
  • This has been planned for the second DRS enhancement phase (starting mid-spring 2009), "DRS 2.2". It will focus on improving file, object and metadata management activities (search, update, etc.), especially using the DRS web admin tool.
• Improvements to the deposit process for audio content
  • This will also be included as part of DRS 2.2.

As a direct result of the survey responses, the following activities will be conducted:

• OIS will re-examine the content on the DRS public web site and the DRS Depositor iSite to:
  • make sure that users do not need to look in multiple locations for DRS documentation
  • see where examples and tutorials could improve the documentation
• OIS will plan to accept video content into the DRS a few years from now.
• OIS will begin monitoring common desktop applications to ensure that DRS format requirements are aligned with current technology trends.
• OIS will explore ways to improve the quality and delivery of data management guidance.

Survey Problems

After the survey was conducted a few problems were discovered with the survey tool, instructions and questions. These problems are not thought to be significant enough to affect the overall results but are noted here to explain some of the results and so that they won't be repeated in future surveys.

1. There was an iPoll bug that resulted in long comments being cut off. The poll creation form allows users to enter more text then the question is configured to accept. This means that unless the user counts the characters in their response, the user thinks that their entire answer is submitted but in reality their text gets cut off. (This bug has been reported to icommons and is in their ticketing system).
2. The survey instructions did not specify that it should be filled out by individuals (instead of groups). While there is nothing wrong with groups pooling together their survey responses it results in their responses being undercounted. Future survey instructions should either specify that it should be filled out by individuals instead of by groups or they should ask for the number of individuals filling out the survey (so that their responses can be multiplied by the number of people taking the survey).
3. A number of questions provided options for level of satisfaction. The available options weren't complete (a “Dissatisfied” option was left out) and the options weren't ordered intuitively (“Somewhat satisfied” should have come after “Satisfied”).
   
   

   The survey said	The survey should have said
   Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/A	Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/A