CFI GROUP WORLDWIDE ANN ARBOR ATLANTA BEIJING LONDON MADRID MILAN PARIS SHANGHAI STOCKHOLM REPRESENTATIVE OFFICES BUENOS AIRES KUALA LUMPUR PORTO ALEGRE NASA Earth Observing System Data and Information Systems Customer Satisfaction Results November 6, 2007

2 © CFI Group 2007 Today’s Discussion Background Overview Key Results Detailed Analysis Summary

3 © CFI Group 2007 Background

4 © CFI Group 2007 Project Background Objectives Measure customer satisfaction with the NASA Earth Observing System Data and Information System at a national level and for each Data Center –Alaska Satellite Facility (ASF DAAC) –Goddard Space Flight Center Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GSFC DISC DAAC) –Global Hydrology Resource Center (GHRC) –*MODIS Data Processing System (MODAPS/LAADS) –NASA Langley Atmospheric Science Data Center (ASDC DAAC – LaRC) –Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (LP DAAC) –National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC DAAC) –Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center (ORNL DAAC/FLUXNET) –Physical Oceanography Distributed Active Archive Center (PO DAAC - JPL) –Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC) Assess the trends in satisfaction with NASA EOSDIS specifically in the following key areas: –Product Search –Product Selection and Order –Delivery –Product Quality –Product Documentation –Customer Support Identify the key areas that NASA can leverage across the Data Centers to continuously improve its service to its users *Measured for first time in 2007

5 © CFI Group 2007 Project Background Measurement timetable Finalized questionnaireAugust 16, 2007 Data collection via webSeptember 9, 2007 – October 10, 2007 Topline resultsOctober 15, 2007 Results briefingNovember 6, 2007

6 © CFI Group 2007 Project Background Data collection Respondents A total of 2,290 responses were received:

7 © CFI Group 2007 Project Background Respondent information Q8. For which disciplines do you need or use Earth science data? (n=2,291)* Demographics remain fairly consistent with 2006

8 © CFI Group 2007 Project Background Respondent information Demographics remain fairly consistent with 2006

9 © CFI Group 2007 Overview Key Results

10 © CFI Group 2007 NASA EOSDIS Customer satisfaction results 2006 Ideal How close does [DAAC] come to the ideal organization? Overall satisfaction How satisfied are you with the data products and services provided by [DAAC]? ATTRIBUTES Expectations To what extent have the data products and services provided by [DAAC] fallen short of or met your expectations? ACSI

11 © CFI Group 2007 NASA EOSDIS Benchmarks Strong performance continues …

12 © CFI Group 2007 Customer Satisfaction Index Future Use Recommend NASA EOSDIS Model Product Search/Selection/Documentation and Customer Support most critical Sample Size: 2, The performance of each component on a 0 to 100 scale. Component scores are made up of the weighted average of the corresponding survey questions. Scores Customer Support Product Search Product Quality Product Documentation Product Selection and Order The change in target variable that results from a five point change in a component score. For example, a 5-point gain in Product Search would yield a 0.7-point improvement in Satisfaction. Impacts Delivery

13 © CFI Group 2007 NASA EOSDIS Significant improvements from 2006 =Significant Difference vs. 2006

14 © CFI Group 2007 Areas of Opportunity for NASA EOSDIS Remain consistent year over year Top Improvement Priority Product Search (72) Product Selection and Order (74) Product Documentation (74)

15 © CFI Group 2007 Detailed Analysis

16 © CFI Group 2007 Score Comparison Higher satisfaction persists outside of the USA Respondents outside the USA continue to have a higher overall Satisfaction score with EOSDIS (74 outside vs. 72 USA in 2006), though gap has lessened. 65% of respondents are outside of the USA in 2007 vs. 64% in 2006.

17 © CFI Group 2007 CSI by Data Centers All Data Centers trend positively or stay same N/A ASDC DAAC - LaRC ASF DAAC/SAR GHRC GSFC DISC LP DAAC MODAPS/LAADS NSIDC DAAC ORNL DAAC/FLUXNET PO DAAC - JPL SEDAC (+/-) 3.1 (+/-) 2.2 (+/-) 4.2 (+/-) 2.5 (+/-) 2.4 (+/-) 1.0 (+/-) 1.9 (+/-) 3.9 (+/-) 1.5

18 © CFI Group 2007 Product Search Key driver of satisfaction 52% used EOS Data Gateway to search for data and products (65% in 2006) =Significant Difference vs Impact=0.7

19 © CFI Group 2007 Product Search Score Comparison By method for most recent search Q13. How did you search for the data products or services you were seeking? (n=2,291) 3% indicated other; 2% said direct interaction (did not rate product search questions) * Wording Change: Data center search capability

20 © CFI Group 2007 Product Search Scores by Data Center N/A NASA EOSDIS ASDC DAAC - LaRC ASF DAAC/SAR GHRC GSFC DISC LP DAAC MODAPS/LAADS NSIDC DAAC ORNL DAAC/FLUXNET PO DAAC - JPL SEDAC (+/-) 1.8 (+/-) 0.7 (+/-) 4.4 (+/-) 2.3 (+/-) 1.2 (+/-) 3.3 (+/-) 3.6 (+/-) 4.8 (+/-) 2.3 (+/-) 3.4 (+/-) 1.7

21 © CFI Group 2007 Product Selection and Order Also a top opportunity for continuous improvement 94% said that they are finding what they want in terms of type, format, time series, etc. Q16. Please think about your most recent request/order/download from the Data Center. Did you use a subsetting tool? (n=2,291) 24% said No, 44% said Yes, by geographic area, 7% said Yes, by geophysical parameter, and 24% said Yes, by both geographic area and geophysical parameter. Impact=0.7 =Significant Difference vs. 2006

22 © CFI Group 2007 Product Selection and Order Scores by Data Center N/A NASA EOSDIS ASDC DAAC - LaRC ASF DAAC/SAR GHRC GSFC DISC LP DAAC MODAPS/LAADS NSIDC DAAC ORNL DAAC/FLUXNET PO DAAC - JPL SEDAC (+/-) 0.7 (+/-) 3.3 (+/-) 2.3 (+/-) 1.7 (+/-) 1.1 (+/-) 1.8 (+/-) 4.8 (+/-) 3.3 (+/-) 2.5 (+/-) 4.5 (+/-) 3.3 =Significant Difference vs. 2006

23 © CFI Group 2007 Product Documentation Data product description and product format most sought after What documentation did you use or were you looking for?* Data product description 66% Product format 57% Science algorithm 46% Instrument specifications 38% Tools 31% Science Applications 30% Production code 11% Impact=1.0 *Multi-select Q38. Was the documentation (n=2,291)... Delivered with the data (15% vs. 18% in ‘06), Available online (69% vs. 70% in ‘06), Not found (12% vs. 16% in ‘06). CSI for those whose documentation was not found is 66 vs. those who got it delivered with the data (76) or online (77). * Wording Change: Readability of the document (i.e., technical level, organization, clarity)

24 © CFI Group 2007 Product Documentation Scores by data center Impact=1.0

25 © CFI Group 2007 Customer Support Maintain strong performance Q41. Did you request assistance from the Data Center’s user services staff during your most recent search or order? (n=2,291) No=60%, Yes, by phone=3%, Yes, by =33%, Yes, by phone and =4% 91% (86% in 2006) were able to get help on first request. These respondents continue to have a significantly higher CSI (79) than those who did not (61). Impact=1.5 =Significant Difference vs. 2006

26 © CFI Group 2007 Product Quality Preferences in line with actual for the most part In 2006, 67% said products were provided in HDF- EOS and HDF and 42% said they were their preferred method. *Multiple responses allowed *

27 © CFI Group 2007 Product Quality Impact=0.3 * Wording change, not comparable to 2005

28 © CFI Group 2007 Delivery 67% said their data came from MODIS (62% in 2006); 24% said ASTER (30% in 2006) Impact=0.2 =Significant Difference vs. 2006

29 © CFI Group 2007 Delivery Methods for receiving … How long did it take to receive your data products? 20% immediate retrieve (22% in 2006) CSI=77 29% less than a day (32% in 2006) CSI=75 34% 1-3 days CSI=76 9% 4-7 days CSI=73 5% 8-14 days (5% in 2006) CSI=75 4% more than 14 days (3% in 2006) CSI=69 72% said FTP was their preferred method in 2006

30 © CFI Group 2007 Summary

31 © CFI Group 2007 Summary  NASA EOSDIS has made significant improvements versus last year in multiple areas (Product Selection/Order, Search and Quality)  All Data Centers trend positively or stay same  Product Search, Selection and Order continue to be the top opportunities for improvement Documentation also high impact this year  Customer Support continues to be high impact for those who require it. Imperative to maintain the strong level of service. Ensure those who are providing it realize how it affects satisfaction

32 © CFI Group 2007 Appendix

33 © CFI Group 2007 ACSI National, Sector and Industry Scores: Q – Q Hotels 81Full Service Restaurants 77Limited- Service Restaurants 66Newspapers 70Motion Pictures 67Network/Cable TV News 73Computer Software 70Fixed Line Telephone Service 68Wireless Telephone Service 70Cellular Telephones 62Cable & Satellite TV 73Energy Utilities 75Supermarkets 71Gasoline Stations 74Department & Discount Stores 75Specialty Retail Stores 78Health & Personal Care Stores 77Banks 79Life Insurance 72Health Insurance 78Property & Casualty Insurance 63Airlines 73U.S. Postal Service 81Express Delivery 65.9Local Government 71.3Federal Government Accommodation & Food Services 75.7 Information 68.3 Utilities 72.9 Finance & Insurance 76.0 Transportation & Warehousing 71.1 Public Administration/ Government Retail 78Auctions 78Brokerage 76 Travel E-Commerce Hospitals Health Care & Social Assistance 76.8 Source: Manufacturing/ Durable Goods 80.1 E-Business Personal Computers 80 Electronics (TV/VCR/DVD) 81Major Appliances 81Automobiles & Light Vehicles 73News & Information 76Portals 79Search Engines Manufacturing/ Nondurable Goods Food Manufacturing 83Pet Food 84Soft Drinks 82Breweries 78Cigarettes 80Apparel 76Athletic Shoes 84Personal Care & Cleaning Products Retail Trade

34 © CFI Group 2007 x1x1 x2x2 x3x3 x4x4 x5x5 x6x6 x 1 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 y1y1 y2y2 y3y3 y 3 y 2 y 1 11 22  x ixit i , for i=1,2,3 t=1,2 y jyjj  1, for j=1,2,3     x 2 The Math Behind the Numbers A discussion for a later date…or following this presentation for those who are interested.

35 © CFI Group 2007 A Note About Score Calculation Attributes (questions on the survey) are typically answered on a 1-10 scale –Social science research shows 7-10 response categories are optimal –Customers are familiar with a 10 point scale Before being reported, scores are transformed from a 1-10 to a scale –The transformation is strictly algebraic; e.g. –The scale simplifies reporting: Often no need to report many, if any, decimal places scale is useful as a management tool

36 © CFI Group 2007 Deriving Impacts Remember high school algebra? The general formula for a line is: y = mx + b The basic idea is that x is a “cause” and y is an “effect”, and m represents the slope of the line – summarizing the relationship between x & y CFI Group uses a sophisticated variation of the advanced statistical tool, Partial Least Squares (PLS) Regression, to determine impacts when many different causes (i.e., quality components) simultaneously effect an outcome (e.g., Customer Satisfaction)