1. 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

2. WP2 organisation and partnership WP2.3 Service Engineering WP2 – WP2.1 lead Service Evolution, management and support WP2.2 Service Definition WP2.4 Service transition WP2.5 Service operation, Service Desk WP2.6 Service monitoring 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 desk from users or potential users via the service desk, via you through the service desk servicedesk@myocean.eu.org

4. Users’ needs (requirements & feedback)  September 2009, Reference intermediate user group meeting, Athens  reliability, long term sustainibility and quality requested for the service  March 2011, from survey 3 months after service release. Answers from 23% of registered users (60 users)  Navigation of the web site not easy  Difficult to use scripts  April 2011: user workshop, Stockholm  reliability, long term sustainibility and quality requested for the service  Users want 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 download mechanisms (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 term sustainability  Better explanation given on web portal in catalogue of service  Preparation of MyOcean follow-up: ECOMF. Communication on this.  and quality requested for the service  Addition of document to nearly each product of catalogue, QUID. Available from catalogue.  Quaterly report on NRT products planned end 2013

6. MyOcean answer  Navigation of the web site not easy  Upgrade done in July 2012  Users want a simplification of the registration form & would like an online registration form  Online registration from January 2012, 2 nd main upgrade of service

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

8. MyOcean answer  Difficulty to use scripts  FAQ proposed  Generation of scripts after user refined his/her request, with a « click »  Training with online demonstration (as last week)  Still need be improved (tutorials planned)

9.  Analysis of all requests and feedbacks  over the period July 2011- May 2012 (11 months)  from 90 users  Altogether 274 requests or feedbacks  through surveys, user validation test, spontaneous feedback, different project meeting with users, 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 MyOcean organisation & process

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

11.  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. Users’ needs (requirements & feedback)

12.  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. Users’ needs (requirements & feedback)

13.  April 2013: user workshop, Copenhagen, last week  Needs of Marine Strategy Framework Directive expressed. Dialogue opened  MyOcean service very useful  Biologists were present Some of the needs mentionned by users  Difficult to read nedcf 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  Difficulty to choose a product among other (many temperatiure, several reanalysis)

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