Presentation #211.01 in the session We Know the Way: Future Missions, Instruments, Facilities (iPosters).
We have completed our Second Customer Satisfaction Survey (CSS) of the Planatary Data System (PDS). The Survey was taken between March 7, and May18, 2022. A total of 256 responses were received.
As in the initial NASA PDS CSS. NASA commissioned CFI Group to conduct 2nd study using the same methodology the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). The 2020 PDS Customer Satisfaction report provided detailed information about the survey protocols which were used again in 2022. This gives a baseline for measurements of customer satisfaction with the NASA Planetary Data System. The ACSI is a national indicator of customer evaluations of the quality of goods and services available in the U.S. The ACSI is widely used to measure customer satisfaction among government programs.
The 2022 survey focused on customer satisfaction with PDS as a unitary archive. And modifications were made based on the recently released Planetary Data Ecosystem Independent Review Board (PDE IRB) commissioned by NASA for its long-term planning and support of the Planetary Data Ecosystem. The report can be found at: https://science.nasa.gov/science-red/s3fs-public/atoms/files/PDE%20IRB%20Final%20Report.pdf.
The PDS 2022 CSS included many questions that were like those in the PDS 2020 CSS. Thus, there were questions focused on scientific and technical background of the responder and the responder’s degree of experience of the user with PDS, as a user or as a data provider.
There were also questions to probe the search tools the user applied (developed by PDS or from another source), the experience with those tools, and the overall satisfaction with these search mechanisms. The user experience with the entire process — PDS data delivery services, interfaces, and protocols for downloading or retrieving data — was probed.
Customers were asked to rate the ease of understanding and interpreting PDS data and metadata by humans, about the accessibility and interoperability of PDS data and metadata product(s) by/with existing software, accessibility, completeness, and accuracy of PDS archive documentation, usefulness of PDS training materials, the software tools that they used to work with and analyze PDS data, and the usefulness of PDS Customer Service.
As noted, customers were asked to define the future directions of the PDS with respect to new and evolving information technologies, and their expectations for their use of these technologies, and who should provide them. These results are shown in Figure 1. Other results will also be presented at the meeting.