This session goes beyond surveys to look at creative ways to gather and present user input. Surveys are tried-and-true ways to gather input from constituents, but there are many other fun and creative ways to hear your users’ voices. From user diaries, to flipcarts and pens, time-lapse photography, and on-the-ground guerilla surveying using iPads, learn alternatives for gathering and presenting user input to make more informed decisions for your library.

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