The document discusses various methodologies for gathering user feedback at the University of Pittsburgh's library, including surveys, observational studies, and discussion groups. Key findings indicate that while users appreciate the library's staff and social atmosphere, there are requests for improved facilities, such as more power outlets and better Wi-Fi. The document emphasizes the importance of engaging users to enhance library services and adapt to their needs.

1. Jef f Wisniewski
Web Ser vices &
Communicat ions
Librar ian
Univer si ty of
Pi t tsburgh
jef fw@pi t t .edu
@jef fwisniewski
GATHERING AND
PRESENTING (AND ACTING
ON) USER INPUT

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

3. FEEDBACK IS…
 A process, not a thing
 Explicit (what they say)
 Implicit (what they do)
 Active (surveying)
 Passive (website analytics)
 Online
 Of fline

4. BAD ASSUMPTIONS
 No news is good news
 No complaints= happy users
 The complaints you hear are the only ones
 Anecdotal evidence is not biased
 Build it and they will come

5. METHODOLOGIES
WHAT we did
 HOW we did it
WHY we did it
 PROS and CONS
What we LEARNED

6.  Print
questionnaire/di
ary hybrid
 Goal: discover
how and why
students use the
building to help
facilities and
services
planning
MY DAY

7.  Three parts:
METHODOLOGY
 Entrance (motivation)
During (activities)
 Exit (achievements)
 169 responses (65% response rate)
 Incentive: $2.00 café gif t card

10. PROS AND CONS
 Pro: Mostly structured data
 Pro: Demographic data allows for deeper analysis
 Pro: Contact information allows for direct follow up
as appropriate
 Con: Survey design and design of survey time
consuming
 Con: unstructured data time consuming to code and
analyze

11. FINDINGS
Most respondents accomplished their goals for the
visit
Many respondents reported that they visited library
to under take group or social activities
 Respondents selected Hillman for its convenient
location and good study atmosphere

12. FINDINGS
 Library is primarily a before or af ter class
destination
 A majority of respondents visit daily
 40% visit more than once a day
 40% spend between 30 min and 2 hrs, 40% more
than two hours
 Less than 10% come for library specific things:
finding materials, getting help, etc.

13. FINDINGS
What could we do better?
More power outlets
Stronger wi-fi
More seating and more tables

14. FURNITURE MOVEMENT STUDY

15. METHODOLOGY
 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

16. METHODOLOGY

17. PROS AND CONS
 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

18. FINDINGS
 Information to help in scheduling least disruptive
programming, repairs, renovations
 The “weekend” begins on our campus on Thursday
Make it movable, or they will
 Lower use quadrants oh high use floors as spaces for
new services

21. FLIPCHARTS
Seek to learn what
users like and dislike
about various spaces

22. METHODOLOGY
 Flipcharts and markers placed in 14 locations in
building
 2 weeks in March and 2 weeks in April
 Sheets collected daily
 Results analyzed

23. PROS AND CONS
 Pro: Quick, easy, cheap to implement
 Pro: Unfiltered feedback
 Con: Analysis of fully unstructured data time
consuming
 Con: No demographic data
 Con: No ability to directly follow up

26. WHAT WE LEARNED
 They want wi-fi, outlets, and better climate control
 They HATE these:

30. 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?

31. BRAND PERCEPTION STUDY
 Exercise to investigate faculty opinions regarding the ULS and
awareness of faculty-focused products and services

32. METHODOLOGY
Discussion Groups
 Three Groups of Faculty
 Discuss perceptions of the ULS, services, staf f,
communications and messaging
 Sessions transcribed and transcripts analyzed
Fol low Up Interviews with Selected Faculty

33. The good:
 A l l f a c u lt y fi n d t h e l i b r ar y s t a f f to b e “ ex t r eme ly exc e pt io n al”
and able to respond to their requests
 Librarians and staf f are highly respected and valued and are
clearly a strength
 Faculty are eager to have a more col legial relationship with
l ibrarians
 There is a strong desire among faculty for hands-on l ibrary
led workshops
WHAT WE LEARNED

34. WHAT WE LEARNED
The bad:
 Faculty awareness of many ULS services is low
 The ULS is star ting to feel too "corporate" with a company-customer
feel instead of a col legial par tnership
 Faculty would l ike l ibrarians to proactively suggest solutions
without feeling l ike they are being "sold"

35. PROS AND CONS
 Pro: Rich, unfi ltered information
 Pro: Direct engagement with faculty
 Con: Time consuming to plan, conduct, transcribe, analyze

37. “ Fo r faculty and students, it really boils down to your
relationship with the librarians. If you utilize them, you will have
su c c ess. ”
David Sanchez
Civi l and Environmental
Engineering Depar tment

38. DID YOU KNOW…
We can consult with you about
the management of your research
data?

39. “ T h e U L S sh o u ld be a d e s t in atio n site. . . I t ’ s f u ll of treasures
including a wealth of collections and archives for visitors to
enjoy. I also think the social aspect of the library —with the cof fee
shop and collaboration areas—is extraordinary and extremely
healthy. You really feel a strong sense of community in the
libr ar y. ”
El len Cohn
Communications Science
and Disorders Depar tment

40. Did you know…
We have tools to help you demonstrate the impact of your
research?

41. “ T h e fact the ULS helps to fund open access publishing is
quite valuable to me as I publish journals in multidisciplinary
areas. But the staf f is also helpful with all of my needs,
wh ether it ’ s with publishing, ordering books or requesting
jo u r n als. ”
Ervin Sejdic
Electrical and Computer
Engineering Depar tment

42.  Google analytics
Campaigns for measuring channels
Content grouping for evaluating success of certain
types of content
 iPad surveying
Communication channel effectiveness
Programming analysis
 How did you hear?
More like this?
ONLINE

43. GOOGLE ANALYTICS
 “Campaigns” to assess ef fectiveness of
communication channels
 “Content Grouping” to assess ef fectiveness of
various types of content

44. GOOGLE ANALYTICS: CAMPAIGNS
 Assess ef fectiveness of communication channels
(email, PDF flyer, web page, etc)
 Online asset tagged with special code; GA collects
information

45. GOOGLE ANALYTICS: CAMPAIGNS
www.library.pitt.edu/googlebooks
Parameters:
utm_campaign
utm_source
Utm_medium
Campaign= googlebooks
Source=campus_portal
Medium=pdf_flyer
Campaign URL Builder:
https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/10338
67?hl=en

46. GOOGLE ANALYTICS: CAMPAIGNS
www.library.pitt.edu/googlebooks/?=utm=camp
aign=googlebooks&utm_medium=pdf_flyer&ut
m_source=campus_portal

47. GOOGLE ANALYTICS: CONTENT
GROUPING
 The big picture is too big to be informative
 Dif ferent perspectives for dif ferent content types
Example: time on page (average):
 Blogs, reviews, essays (engagement content)= HIGH
 Database descriptions, login pages (por tal
content)=LOW

48. GOOGLE ANALYTICS: CONTENT
GROUPING
 The big picture is too big to be informative
 Dif ferent perspectives for dif ferent content types
Example: time on page (average):
 Blogs, reviews, essays (engagement content)= HIGH
 Database descriptions, login pages (por tal content)=LOW
https://suppor t.google.com/analytics/answer/2853423?hl
=en

49. IN THE FIELD SURVEYING USING IPADS

50. METHODOLOGY
 Created onl ine survey using Qualtrics
 Desktop shor tcut on iPad
 Asked:
 Name
 Email
 Department/major
 How did you hear about
 Should we do this again
 Can we follow up with you

51. WHAT WE LEARNED

52. WHAT WE LEARNED

53. WHAT WE LEARNED

54. THANKS
 To my Communications team
 To our Of fice of Strategic Assessment

55. THANK YOU!
Questions? Comments? Things to
share?
jeffw@pitt.edu
@jeffwisniewski