Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research AMD User/Provider Survey Amsterdam 7 th September 2009

Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research

AMD User/Provider SurveyAMD User/Provider Survey

Amsterdam 7th September 2009


• Want greater provider and user support of AMD.• Need to make sure that the “tools” and

“processes” we are using meet needs.• Opportunity to re-visit our needs, processes and

tools with support from the GCMD.• Easiest way to do some of this is via an online

survey.• Later we will hear from selected countries about

their experiences – can use this to help us frame questions and understand strengths/weaknesses.

• Purpose of this and following sessions is to use our time to devise the survey questions.

• Nominate a group to develop and execute the survey for us and provide us with results.

BackgroundBackground


Possible Topics To Explore ?Possible Topics To Explore ?• What do AMD data users think of the AMD search portal

– (usability, functionality - strengths/weaknesses) ?• What do AMD data providers think of docBuilder

(editor) (usability, functionality - strengths/weaknesses) ?

• Could the user/provider experience be improved by changing the way the “community” manages its content - should this be part of the survey or a separate task-group activity ?

• If improvements could be made to (a) search interface, (b) editor and (c) community practices – would the respondent be more inclined to use the system or not ? If not, why not ?


• Decide on the purpose of the survey (why are we doing it – what use will the data be put to ?)

• Keep it relatively short.• Provide a cover page that sets out what we are doing,

why and include any instructions for completing the survey including cut-off date – be concise.

• Simple unambiguous questions without multiple parts.• Don’t assume things about the respondents.• Don’t use emotive or vague words.• Make the survey questions flow logically.• Choose the right type of question (open, closed,

categorical, quantitative, single or multiple response)

Notes on Good Survey DesignNotes on Good Survey Design


Community Practices (examples)Community Practices (examples)

The <Project> is the name of the scientific program, field campaign, or project from which the data were collected.

BUT <Project> is also being used to hold the name of SCAR programs that this metadata record/dataset might be useful for (e.g. IPY). This tag is then used by the GCMD to populate theme-specific portals (e.g. IPY and EBA Portals).

SO this one metadata field is holding two different “meanings” of the word <Project> simultaneously. The result is that searches using this field provide the wrong information depending on what definition you were using when you made the search.

It is very poor practise to have ambiguous usage of terms as it diminishes the quality of the tool. Better to have two distinct terms in the record or have a way to “qualify” the usage.


Community Practices Community Practices (examples)(examples)

The <Project> term is selected from a list. You can add your own projects. Is the list moderated ? Should SCAR moderate the names provided to the GCMD so that it has a controlled way of both referring to its programs and projects and a way of searching for data that originates from them ? Should the project list be hierarchical (i.e. Standing Group > Scientific Research Programs > Project) ?


Community Practices Community Practices (examples)(examples)

See previous SCADM Action List from 2008

Should we have another go at tasking a group to audit the AMD metadata, investigate the issues we have already identified and provide recommendations on ways forward ?

This work could be run in parallel with an online survey which would be aimed more at understanding general user/provider views about using the AMD (rather than focussing on Community practise issues).


Feedback From Selected Feedback From Selected CountriesCountries

• Netherlands – Taco De Bruin• Japan - Masaki Kanao • Malaysia – Talha Talhady• Russia – Victor Lagun• UK – Helen Campbell• New Zealand - Helen (for Shulamit Gordon)

• Is the AMD meeting your national (Antarctic metadata management and data discovery) needs ?, if it isn't why and how it could be improved.

• How many metadata records has your country entered and are you happy with progress. If you are not, do you have any ideas about why the contribution rate is not optimal and what could be done to improve it in the future.


Break-out GroupsBreak-out Groups

3 Groups – 30 minutes1. What do AMD data users think of the AMD search portal – (usability,

functionality - strengths/weaknesses) ?2. What do AMD data providers think of docBuilder (editor) (usability,

functionality - strengths/weaknesses) ?3. Could the user/provider experience be improved by changing the way the

“community” manages its content ?4. All groups to consider whether we need a separate task (and method) to

investigate “community practice” issues.

3 Groups – 10 minutes– Report back on the types of questions that you would ask.– One member of the group record the questions on a computer so that we

can put them up on the screen (and keep them for the Survey Action Group).

Accept Nominations For Survey Action Group

– Prepare the survey; Pilot survey; Implement survey; Provide results

Accept Nominations For Audit Action Group

– Review action list; investigate issues; make recommendations

Documents

Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research AMD User/Provider Survey Amsterdam 7 th September 2009