1 / 15

MyOcean2 First Annual Meeting – 16-17 April 2013

Answer to users ’ needs in service definition and evolution Dominique Obaton , Vincent Claverie WP2 MyOcean2 First Annual Meeting – Cork /16-17 April 2013. MyOcean2 First Annual Meeting – 16-17 April 2013. WP2 organisation and partnership. WP2 – WP2.1 lead

dalton
Download Presentation

MyOcean2 First Annual Meeting – 16-17 April 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Answer to users’ needs in service definition and evolution Dominique Obaton, Vincent Claverie WP2 MyOcean2 First Annual Meeting – Cork /16-17 April 2013 MyOcean2 First Annual Meeting – 16-17 April 2013

  2. WP2 organisation and partnership WP2 – WP2.1 lead Service Evolution, management and support WP2.5 Service operation, Service Desk WP2.6 Service monitoring WP2.2 Service Definition WP2.3 Service Engineering WP2.4 Service transition Overall management Daily management Mercator Océan WP2 leader & service managers

  3. Users’ needs(requirements & feedback) • Inputs from • WP3 partners : ROOS users via URD –user requirement document- and UAR –user assessment report • User workshops (Stockholm 2009, Copenhagen 2013) • Surveys –4 weeks after registration, at end of validation phase of each release from standard (registered & external users) users • Spontaneous feedback to service deskfrom users or potential users via the service desk, via you through the service desk • servicedesk@myocean.eu.org

  4. Users’ needs(requirements & feedback) • September2009, Reference intermediate user group meeting, Athens • reliability, long termsustainibility and qualityrequested for the service • March 2011, fromsurvey 3 monthsafter service release. Answersfrom 23% of registeredusers (60 users) • Navigation of the web site not easy • Difficult to use scripts • April 2011: user workshop, Stockholm • reliability, long termsustainibility and qualityrequested for the service • Userswant a simplification of the registration form • Access to the catalogue of products not easy • Navigation of the web site not easy • One stop shop service is a good point • As well as the open and free service

  5. MyOcean answer • reliability • Robustness of downloadmechanisms (producers and central level) and web portal. Monitoring done. • Network organisation of local service desks • Central service desk communicates to users and on website • long termsustainability • Betterexplanationgiven on web portal in catalogue of service • Preparation of MyOceanfollow-up: ECOMF. Communication on this. • and qualityrequested for the service • Addition of document to nearlyeachproduct of catalogue, QUID. Availablefrom catalogue. • Quaterly report on NRT productsplanned end 2013

  6. MyOcean answer • Navigation of the web site not easy • Upgrade done in July 2012 • Userswant a simplification of the registration form & wouldlike an online registration form • Online registration fromJanuary 2012, 2nd main upgrade of service

  7. MyOcean answer • Access of the catalogue of products not easy • 1st part plannedon 23 April 2013 • Reorganisation of catalogue, withreduction of number of products 107 vs 201 • Better focus possibility on web search • 2nd part planned for spring 2014 • Advanced web searchplanned in April 2014

  8. MyOcean answer • Difficultyto use scripts • FAQ proposed • Generation of scripts after user refinedhis/herrequest, with a « click » • Training with online demonstration (as last week) • Stillneedbeimproved (tutorialsplanned)

  9. MyOcean organisation & process • Analysis of all requests and feedbacks • over the period July 2011- May 2012 (11 months) • from 90 users • Altogether 274 requests or feedbacks • throughsurveys, user validation test, spontaneous feedback, differentproject meeting withusers, user requirement and assessment • Record of all requests and feedbacks in a table “record of user feedback” with date, author, category of remarks, description of remark

  10. WP2 organisation and partnership WP2 – WP2.1 lead Service Evolution, management and support WP2.5 Service operation, Service Desk WP2.6 Service monitoring WP2.2 Service Definition WP2.3 Service Engineering WP2.4 Service transition • Record and synthesis of users’ needs • FTSS • Catalogue definition Mercator Océan HCMR

  11. Users’ needs(requirements & feedback) •  main conclusion : users do not require new services, but the improvement of current service •  Main positive feedback : • wide range of products with at the same time observation/modeling products • no more complaints after registration process has been improved • Users value the one stop shop. • like the subsetting functionality that allow them to download a part of a product. • main feeling that comes out about the service desk is really good. Users appreciate that the Service Desk provides an answer to any request quickly.

  12. Users’ needs(requirements & feedback) • Main requests or negative feedbacks considered : • products could cover a longer period of time than the one currently proposed. • some requests about new products which mainly concern atmospheric forcings. • still difficult for some users to be able to find products in the catalogue. • to have a better overview of the catalogue and to have search criteria expanded to better target the products available in the catalogue. • MyOcean doesn’t manage properly the download of large volume of products. • In some cases, inconsistency between the information about the product (notably regarding the time coverage) and the product itself • all datasets can’t be visualized • Visualization of a dataset is too slow. • Comm’ messsages concerning incidents/maintenance sent to users are too numerous. Since February 2012 : messages recorded in “News Flash” + sent to users who chose the opt-in option. No more negative feedbacks after March 2012.

  13. Users’ needs(requirements & feedback) • April 2013: user workshop, Copenhagen, last week • Needs of Marine Strategy Framework Directive expressed . Dialogue opened • MyOceanservice veryuseful • Biologistswerepresent • Someof the needsmentionned by users • Difficult to readnedcf for a GIS user and to read the MyOcean data (netcdf) • Difficult to download large volume of products • Needs of very long time series: 50 years, 100 years • Needs of higher horizontal resolution in modelling and up to the coast • Difficultyto choose a productamongother (manytemperatiure, severalreanalysis)

  14. Service improvement • Continuous service improvement. • Next analysis of user feedback planned for end of this year –will include outputs of Copenhagen users’ workshop • Improvement come from users, providers and GMES forum • We try to have an analysis as objective as possible using rules

  15. WP2 organisation and partnership WP2 – WP2.1 lead Service Evolution, management and support WP2.5 Service operation, Service Desk WP2.6 Service monitoring WP2.2 Service Definition WP2.3 Service Engineering WP2.4 Service transition Mercator Ocean WP2 leader service manager catalogue manager  Overall definition of service and of products • Record and synthesis of users’ needs • FTSS • Catalogue definition

More Related