11th Data Warehouse Data Access User Satisfaction Report

ESA UNCLASSIFIED - For Official Use

Prepared by Copernicus Services Account Managers

Reference ESA-EOPDWH-COM-RP-1

Issue/Revision 1.0

Date of Issue 24/06/2020

Status Approved

esrin Via Galileo Galilei

Casella Postale 64

00044 Frascati

Italy

T +39 06 9418 01

F +39 06 9418 0280

www.esa.int

COPERNICUS SPACE COMPONENT DATA ACCESS

12th Data Warehouse Data Access User Satisfaction

Report


/44 11th Data Warehouse Data Access User Satisfaction Report

Issue Date 24/06/2020 ESA-EOPDWH-COM-RP-1

APPROVAL

Title 12th Data Warehouse Data Access User Satisfaction Report Issue Number 1 Revision Number 0

Author Copernicus Services Account Managers Date 24/06/2020

Approved By Date of Approval

Mission Manager of Earth Observation Third Party

Missions

CHANGE LOG Reason for change Issue Nr. Revision Number Date

CHANGE RECORD Issue Number 1 Revision Number 0

Reason for change Date Pages Paragraph(s)

DISTRIBUTION Name/Organisational Unit




Table of contents:

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 4 1.1 Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Document Overview .......................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Reference Documents .......................................................................................................9 2 QUESTIONNAIRE OVERVIEW ................................................................. 9 2.1 Questionnaire Possible Answers and ratings’ values assigned ...................................... 10 2.2 Process ............................................................................................................................. 11 3 ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES FROM COPERNICUS SERVICE PROVIDERS AND UNION RESEARCH PROJECTS ............................................................ 12 3.1 CSCDA Usage Frequency ................................................................................................ 12 3.2 Data Access Portfolio Document (DAP) ......................................................................... 12 3.3 Standard Data Ordering .................................................................................................. 14 3.4 SCI Support Desk ............................................................................................................ 16 3.5 REACT Service ................................................................................................................ 17 3.6 Data Access...................................................................................................................... 18 3.7 Service Performance ...................................................................................................... 20 3.8 Data Quality .................................................................................................................... 21 3.9 Web Portal .......................................................................................................................23 3.10 Account Management Support ...................................................................................... 24 3.11 Overall Perception of CSCDA Services .......................................................................... 26 4 COMMENTS RECEIVED PER QUESTIONNAIRE ELEMENT ..................... 27 4.1 DAP Document................................................................................................................ 27 4.1.1 Usability ................................................................................................................... 27 4.1.2 Overview of CSCDA Services................................................................................... 27 4.1.3 ADDitional datasets content description ............................................................... 28 4.2 Standard data ordering - Off line Maps ......................................................................... 28 4.3 SCI Support desk (interface with SCI, timeliness of enquiries and clarity of information) .......................................................................................................................... 29 4.4 Data Access..................................................................................................................... 30 4.5 Service Performance ....................................................................................................... 31 4.6 Data Quality ....................................................................................................................32 4.7 Web Portal ....................................................................................................................... 33 5 11TH DWH RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION STATUS ............. 34 5.1 DAP document ............................................................................................................... 34 5.2 Data Ordering ................................................................................................................ 34 5.3 Data access ..................................................................................................................... 34 5.4 Performance .................................................................................................................... 35 5.5 SCI support ..................................................................................................................... 35 6 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 36 6.1 DAP document ............................................................................................................... 36 6.2 Data Ordering ................................................................................................................ 36 6.3 Data Access...................................................................................................................... 37 6.4 Service performance ....................................................................................................... 37 7 ANNEX A ................................................................................................ 38


/44

11th Data Warehouse Data Access User Satisfaction Report

Issue Date xx/06/2020

INTRODUCTION

The scope of the Copernicus Space Component Data Access (CSCDA) questionnaire is for ESA to regularly collect feedback from Copernicus Services (CS) Entrusted Entities (EE), Copernicus Service Providers (CSPs) and other PRISM eligible and registered users, regarding the EO data delivered by Copernicus Contributing Missions and the associated support functions (Help and Order Desk, Data Access, Account Managers, etc.). The user feedback serves as input to the project to ensure that ESA and its industrial contracts provide the best possible response to the Copernicus Users’ needs and that improvements are implemented when needed. An analysis of the responses to the questionnaire is done per CS and across all users’ categories. The collection of users’ needs is also performed by ESA through progress meetings with the EE and CSPs. This report documents the results of the analysis of responses to the 12th DWH user satisfaction survey covering the period June 2019 to November 2019; it includes recommendations for service improvements and reports on the implementation of recommendations made following the previous survey.

1.1 Abbreviations

AM Account Manager

AOI Area of Interest

CCME Copernicus Contributing Mission Entities

CQC CSC

Copernicus Coordinated data Quality Control Copernicus Space Component

CSCDA Copernicus Space Component Data Access

CSP CSEA

Copernicus Service Provider Copernicus Support to EU External Action

DAP Data Access Portfolio

DWH EE EMS

Data Warehouse Entrusted Entity Emergency Management Service

ESA European Space Agency

EU-Inst EU Institutions

FTP File Transfer Protocol

LMS Land Monitoring Service

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NRT Near Real-Time

ORR Operational Readiness Review

PA Public Authorities

PANDA PlANetary Data Access




PRISM Copernicus Contributing Missions Access Support Functions and Platform

REACT RRM

Rapid Emergency Activation for Copernicus Tasking Risk and Recovery Mapping (EMS)

SCI SPDM

Services Coordinated Interface Service Projects and Dataset Management tool

SPERF Service Providers Emergency Request Form

SRT Satellite Resource Table

TTO Transfer to Operations

URP Union Research Project

1.2 Document Overview

In the following sections, the statistical results of the 12th Data Warehouse (DWH) data access user satisfaction questionnaire are presented, including:

Section 2 providing an overview of the questionnaire itself

Section 3 presenting an analysis of the feedback from CSPs and Union Research Projects per questionnaire element.

Section 4 presenting details of comments received per questionnaire element, including the assessment of user feedback and responses on Dissatisfied results

Section 5 presenting the status of implementation of the recommendations from the previous user satisfaction survey.

Section 6 presenting the overall conclusions

Annex A presenting the detailed rating records, per category, per user and per questionnaire element.

1.3 Quantitative indication about survey participation by the Users

The survey has been sent out to all EE/CSPs, Union Research Projects, Public Authorities, EU Institutions and NGOs for which at least one member had signed the DWH Terms and Conditions by the date of the survey publication.

Date of Survey publication: 20/02/2020 Reporting period: June 2019 – November 2019

Copernicus Services

Service members contacted: 26 Service members providing

feedback: 11




Other categories

Union Research Projects users contacted: 60

Union Research Projects

users providing feedback: 5

Public Authorities users contacted: 533

Public Authorities

users providing feedback: 11

EU Institutions users contacted: 19

EU Institutions users providing feedback: 0

NGOs users contacted: 7 NGOs users providing

feedback: 2

Figure 1: % of responding members vs contacted members

Eleven EE/CSPs members out of twenty-six responded to the survey (42%). This corresponds to a decrease in participation compared to the previous period (69%). Within the other categories, the overall participation is low with the exception of NGOs (29% of those contacted have replied): no responses received from European Institutions and few (8% of contacted) received from Union Research Projects, Public Authorities (2% of contacted). Within URPs, more participation was expected, as 12 projects were active during the surveyed period (downloading 527 products in total).

42%

8%

2% 0%

29%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Service members Union Research Projects Public Authorities EU Institutions NGOs

% of responding members vs contacted members




Figure 2 presents the trend of the participation to the CSCDA user satisfaction survey. The values represent absolute numbers of entities contacted and corresponding number of responses. Please note the participation trend is limited to Copernicus Services (EEs and CSPs) and Union Research Projects. For these 2 categories, overall participation is 26% vs 33% in the previous period.

Figure 2 : Trend Values - Survey Participation by Copernicus Services and Union Research Projects

39/13

36/21

36/24

35/28

34/21 19/12

29/1437/17

39/16

34/1036/12

35/9

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Survey #1 Survey #2 Survey #3 Survey #4 Survey #5 Survey #6 Survey #7 Survey #8 Survey #9 Survey#10

Survey#11

Survey#12

39/13

36/21

36/24

35/28

34/21 19/12

29/1437/17

39/16

34/1036/12

35/9

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Survey #1 Survey #2 Survey #3 Survey #4 Survey #5 Survey #6 Survey #7 Survey #8 Survey #9 Survey#10

Survey#11

Survey#12




Figure 3 presents the breakdown of survey participation per user category

Figure 3: 12th Survey participation breakdown % per category

Table 1 lists the CSPs/URPs who provided feedback.

Copernicus Service Providers Union Research Projects

Copernicus EMS Rapid Mapping EOMORES

Copernicus EMS Risk and Recovery Mapping

MySustainableForest

Copernicus EMS External Validation Mapping

EOPEN

Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service

MARINE-EO6

FRONTEX

Table 1: List of Copernicus Services and Union Research Projects whose members provided feedback to

the survey

38%

17%

38%

7%

Participation breakdown per category %

Service members Union Research Projects Public Authorities NGOs




1.4 Reference Documents

[RD-1] Copernicus Space Component Data Access Portfolio: Data Warehouse 2014 - 2020 [COPE-PMAN-EOPG-TN-15-0004] [RD-2] 11th Data Warehouse Data Access User Satisfaction Report [ESA-EOPG-COP-

RP-1]

2 QUESTIONNAIRE OVERVIEW

The following sections provide an overview of the survey itself. The user is invited to provide his feedback regarding the CSC data and support functions provided by ESA. The questions are organized in different categories called questionnaire elements which address different domains in the CSCDA (the EO data itself, communication, help desk, order desk, etc.).

Questionnaire Elements

Questions

CSCDA Usage Frequency How frequently do you access CSC-DA services and/or products? DAP How satisfied are you with the usability of DAP Document?

How satisfied are you with the overview of offered CSCDA Services, i.e. registration, data ordering, access to predefined datasets, and helpdesk support? How satisfied are you with the description of Data Offer for the identification of dataset of interest? How satisfied are you with the content of CORE datasets? How satisfied are you with the content of ADDITIONAL datasets?

Data Ordering How satisfied are you with the usability of the Off-line Maps interface in your CSP Personal Area for submitting your data requests under Standard ADDITIONAL Datasets? How satisfied are you with the handling of Standard ADDITIONAL Dataset orders by the SCI Support Desk?

PRISM SCI Support Desk How satisfied are you with the interface with SCI? How satisfied are you with the timeliness of enquiries handling ? How satisfied are you with the clarity of information received?

REACT Service How satisfied are you with the REACT service (availability of operators, communication methods)? How satisfied are you with the responsiveness of the service? How satisfied are you with the clarity of information received? How satisfied are you with the usability of the Service Project Emergency Request Form (SPERF) for specifying your data requests under Rush ADDITIONAL Datasets?

Data Access How often do you use the Copernicus Client (PANDA) tool for searching, browsing, and downloading products? FTP@PRISM - access to Standard Datasets FTP@PRISM - access to Rush Datasets FTP@CCM - access to Rush data on CCME FTP server




FTP@CCM - access to systematic data deliveries for global or regional monitoring Copernicus Client (PANDA) tool

Service Performance How satisfied are you with the timeliness of data delivery within Standard ADDITIONAL Datasets? How satisfied are you with the timeliness of data delivery within Rush ADDITIONAL Datasets? How satisfied are you with the implementation of CORE Datasets (content, timeliness of data delivery)?

Data Quality related matters

How often do you consult the Online CQC Catalogue? Was the data received during the course of the project of good quality for your application; if not, please provide some details about the anomalies? Were these anomalies raised to User Support (SCI/CQC) for further clarification? Satisfaction about content of the answer? Timeliness of the resolution?

Web Portal How often do you visit the web site? How satisfied are you with the usability of the web site? How satisfied are you overall with the web site? Which of the following information you routinely check/use? Multiple selections are possible: Data Offer Description Documentation about 'How to Access Data' Dataset Provision Status Rush activation statistics Dataset browsing functionality FAQ Latest and operational news

Account Management Support

How satisfied are you with Account Management service with regards to : Clarification of data offer Cooperation in resolving issues Support in selecting data or products

Overall Perception of CSCDA Services

How satisfied are you overall with the CSCDA Services you receive? How satisfied are you with the way problems are solved within CSCDA?

Table 2: Questionnaire Elements

2.1 Questionnaire Possible Answers and ratings’ values assigned

All questions are multiple-choice. The possible answers to most questions were:

N/A - Not applicable

VD - Very Dissatisfied

D - Dissatisfied

N - Neutral

S - Satisfied

VS - Very Satisfied




For questions related to frequency, possible answers were:

N/A - Not Applicable

D - Daily

F - Few days a week

W - Weekly

M - Monthly It is noted that analysis of responses may result in an average satisfaction level which is across two levels, i.e. VD/D, S/VS, etc. Ratings’ values:

discarded Not applicable

1 - Very Dissatisfied

2 - Dissatisfied

3 - Neutral

4 - Satisfied

5 - Very Satisfied

2.2 Process

All eligible Copernicus Users are invited to provide their feedback.

Each recipient is invited to extend the survey internally to colleagues to collect feedback from all members.

A deadline for the provision of feedback is nominally set to two weeks; with one extension.

Responses are computed, analysed and commented by the Copernicus Account Management Service. The outcome is presented during Progress Meetings CSPs/ESA when applicable and published on the CSCDA web portal (https://spacedata.copernicus.eu/web/cscda/copernicus-users/users-feedback). As for the other users’ categories, a follow-up is organised through teleconferences in case provided answers result as Dissatisfied to Very Dissatisfied and/or relevant comments need further clarifications. The comments are collected through a free text field for each element of the questionnaire allowing users to add information about the encountered issues or suggestions for improvements.

https://spacedata.copernicus.eu/web/cscda/copernicus-users/users-feedback




3 ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES FROM COPERNICUS SERVICE PROVIDERS AND UNION RESEARCH PROJECTS

The following sections provide the results of the survey and an assessment of the users’ feedback per questionnaire element.

3.1 CSCDA Usage Frequency

The purpose of this measure is to have an indication of the interaction of Users with CSCDA Services that include not only data access but also Web Portal consultation, reports and news, data ordering and SCI support. CSPs have a very regular and frequent need to interface CSCDA, URPs interaction is instead less frequent.

EE/CSP /Project Name CSP CSCDA Usage Frequency

EMS Rapid Mapping CSP Weekly

Copernicus EMS Risk and

Recovery Mapping CSP Few times a week/Weekly

Copernicus EMS External Validation Mapping

CSP Not Provided

Marine Environment Monitoring Service

CSP Daily

FRONTEX CSP Few times a week

EOMORES URP Monthly

MySustainableForest URP Monthly

EOPEN URP Few times a week

MARINE_EO6 URP Daily

Table 3: CSCDA Usage Frequency

3.2 Data Access Portfolio Document (DAP)

Questionnaire Element Across CSPs average Across URPs average

Data Access Portfolio Document (DAP)

Satisfied Neutral

The Data Access Portfolio, together with the CSCDA web portal, is an important source of information for Copernicus users, documenting the EO data available, the applicable access rights and the support functions offered within the CSCDA.




CSPs are mostly Satisfied. The CSPs are users of the CSCDA since many years and very familiar with the DAP content. Details can be found in section 4. As for the URPs, the satisfaction highly depends on the Project and the overall satisfaction is Neutral. Issues were expressed by:

EOMORES with regards to DAP usability, the overview of CSCDA services and the content of ADDitional datasets,

MARINE_EO6 with regards to the usability of DAP. Details can be found in section 4.

Figure 4: DAP evaluation – EE/CSPs

5: Very Satisfied/Satisfied, 4: Satisfied, 3: Neutral/Satisfied, 2: Dissatisfied, 1: Very Dissatisfied 0: N/A

3.7

4.24.0

3.84.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Copernicus EMS RapidMapping

Copernicus EMS Riskand Recovery Mapping

Copernicus EMSExternal Validation

Mapping

Copernicus MarineEnvironment

Monitoring Service

FRONTEX

Data Access Portfolio Document (DAP) - CSPs




Figure 5: DAP evaluation – URPs


3.3 Standard Data Ordering


Standard Data Ordering Satisfied Neutral

CSPs, again very familiar with the interface, are also Satisfied by the Data Ordering functionalities. Comments were mentioned by EMS Risk and Recovery regarding the handling of standard orders, guidelines and performance of standard deliveries. Details can be found in section 4. URPs are also satisfied except MARINE_EO6 who reported issues with the ordering interface. EOMORES, despite reporting being satisfied, also reports problems with regards to the usability of the standard ordering interface and the handling of standard orders. Details can be found in section 4.

3.5

3.02.7

4.2

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

MySustainableForest MARINE-EO6 EOMORES EOPEN

Data Access Portfolio Document (DAP) - URPs




Figure 6: Data ordering evaluation – EE/CSPs


Figure 7: Data ordering evaluation – URPs


4.03.8

4.3

4.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0




Mapping


Monitoring Service

FRONTEX

Data Ordering - Standard ADDITIONAL Datasets -CSPs

4.0

1.5

4.0 4.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0


Data Ordering - Standard ADDITIONAL Datasets -URPs




3.4 SCI Support Desk


SCI Support Desk Satisfied Satisfied

The SCI is the day-to-day interface to Copernicus Users providing support for accessing EO data and handling users’ enquiries. Most respondents from both CSPs and URPs are satisfied to very satisfied by the SCI support. The only exceptions are MARINE_EO6 with regards to the interface with SCI team and the timeliness of enquiries handling process. The evaluation of EMS RRM was clarified to be related to the process and the on-line interface for standard data ordering and not to the evaluation of the support provided by the SCI. Details can be found in section 4.

Figure 8: PRISM-SCI Support Desk evaluation – EE/CSPs


4.0

3.3

4.0

4.54.7

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0




Mapping


Monitoring Service

FRONTEX

SCI Support Desk - CSPs




Figure 9: PRISM-SCI Support Desk evaluation – URPs


3.5 REACT Service


REACT Service Satisfied/Very Satisfied N/A

The REACT service, in charge of handling the Copernicus Rush activations, is only open to eligible users having received a quota within Rush datasets. The eligible CSPs are Satisfied to Very Satisfied with the service. No comments were collected from CSPs. The interaction between REACT service and the eligible users is continuous and feedback is collected regularly for a quick reaction to needs.

5.0

2.0

4.0

5.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0


SCI Support Desk - URPs




Figure 10: REACT service evaluation – EE/CSPs


3.6 Data Access


Data Access Satisfied Satisfied

Most members of the CSPs and URPs are Satisfied. Comments were received from EOMORES with regards to the FTP@PRISM access and from EMS RRM about Panda. Details can be found in section 4.

4.54.3

5.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0




Mapping


Monitoring Service

FRONTEX

REACT Service - CSPs




Figure 11: Data access evaluation – EE/CSPs


Figure 12: Data access evaluation – URPs


3.33.5

4.03.9

4.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0




Mapping


Monitoring Service

FRONTEX

Data Access - CSPs

4.0 4.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0


Data Access - URPs




3.7 Service Performance


Service Performance Neutral/Satisfied Neutral/Satisfied

For both CSPs and URPs the level of satisfaction regarding service performance is Neutral/Satisfied. Comments from CSPs were received from EMS Risk and Recovery and CMEMS. Comments from URPs were received from EOMORES, however very satisfied, and from MARINE_EO regarding delays in the availability of the ordered data. Details can be found in section 4.

Figure 13: Service performance evaluation – EE/CSPs


4.03.8

3.6

4.5

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0




Mapping


Monitoring Service

FRONTEX

Service Performance - CSPs




Figure 14: Service performance evaluation – URPs


3.8 Data Quality



Satisfied Satisfied

For both CSPs and URPs the level of satisfaction is high, except for Marine_EO6. Comments were received from CMEMS and EMS Rapid Mapping. Details can be found in section 4.

4.0

2.0

4.5

4.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0


Service Performance - URPs




Figure 15: Data Quality evaluation – EE/CSPs


Figure 16: Data Quality evaluation – URPs


4.0

3.7

5.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0




Mapping


Monitoring Service

FRONTEX

Data Quality related matters - CSPs

5.0

3.0

5.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0


Data Quality related matters - URPs




3.9 Web Portal


Web Portal Neutral/Satisfied Neutral/Satisfied

How often do you visit

the web site

Weekly Weekly

For both CSPs and URPs the level of satisfaction is Neutral/Satisfied. One issue has been reported by EMS RRM due to incomplete information regarding TPM data availability. Details are available in section 4.

Figure 17: Web Portal evaluation – EE/CSPs


3.5 3.5

0.0

4.0 4.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0




Mapping


Monitoring Service

FRONTEX

Web Portal - CSPs




Figure 18: Web Portal evaluation – URPs


The most useful information for CSPs are:

Latest and operational news

Data provision status

Data offer description The most useful information for URPs are:

Latest and operational news

Data offer description.

3.10 Account Management Support



Satisfied/Very Satisfied Satisfied/Very Satisfied

For both CSPs and URPs the level of satisfaction related to the support provided by the Account Managers is very high. No comments were made.

3.0 3.0

4.0 4.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0


Web Portal - URPs




Figure 19: Account Management Support evaluation – EE/CSPs


Figure 20: Account Management Support evaluation – URPs


4.3

4.0

4.6

5.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0




Mapping


Monitoring Service

FRONTEX

Account Management Support - CSPs

5.0

4.0 4.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0


Account Management Support - URPs




3.11 Overall Perception of CSCDA Services

Questionnaire Element Across CSPs

average

Across URPs average


Satisfied Satisfied

Globally, the respondents are satisfied with the EO data and associated support functions offered within the CSCDA. The issues reported by MARINE_EO6 in previous sections are being addressed in order to improve their experience accessing CSCDA data and services.

Figure 21: Overall Perception of CSCDA Services – EE/CSPs


4.03.8

0.0

4.4

5.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0




Mapping


Monitoring Service

FRONTEX





Figure 22: Overall Perception of CSCDA Services – URPs


4 COMMENTS RECEIVED PER QUESTIONNAIRE ELEMENT

4.1 DAP Document

4.1.1 Usability

MARINE_EO6 commented: o In some parts the document has too much text which makes it difficult to

navigate and search for a specific subject. Perhaps a web version of the document would be a preferable alternative. Also, the abbreviations created are not always intuitive.

Public Authority commented: o It would help to provide a more structured PDF of the document, i.e. an

indexed PDF (as available from Adobe Acrobat), which allows to easily navigate between certain sections of interest.

ESA analysis: navigation through the document is the main comment to the usability of DAP, the suggestion of a Web version or an indexed PDF will be assessed.

4.1.2 Overview of CSCDA Services

EOMORES commented: o The document is way too complex. The methods of how to order were only

clear from a presentation. The helpdesk itself is great, they help to solve all problems.

4.0

2.0

4.74.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0






ESA analysis: as mentioned above, ESA will strive to improve the readability of the DAP, however the “how to order instructions” are a topic supported rather by the ordering guidelines available on line at https://spacedata.copernicus.eu/documents/20126/0/StandardOrdering_02032020.pdf/9d964765-7c94-d51d-4b12-bae796b52fbc?t=1590680931618. The latest update was made early 2020. A user manual will soon be published with the next release of the user interface (SPDM v7) which transfer to operations is foreseen in July 2020.

4.1.3 ADDitional datasets content description

EOMORES commented:

o It is way too complex. Several of our project partners (who are experts) needed to ask about details or found out after a couple of orders that another type of product was also possible.

ESA analysis: the description of ADDitional Datasets in DAP is presented as a list of

portfolios i.e. containers of several missions all responding to the same specific requirements

of resolution, sensor type, bands, polarisations, beam types and acquisition status (Archived

or New).

A list of available processing levels/product types per dataset is instead included in the order

form as a pull-down menu for user selection when filling-in the data request.

4.2 Standard data ordering - Off line Maps

EMS Risk & Recovery commented: o In my still short experience sometimes there were misunderstandings with the

support desk with respect to specific requests made (e.g. stereo acquisitions). o the guidelines state that by default the user receives an e-mail notification

when the ordered data are available. This is not true and led me waiting for images that were already on the portal. Finally, probably because of this misunderstanding, I have never got access to the data within the 24h foreseen for fast24 orders (archive images).

ESA analysis: the relevant guidelines proved to be incorrectly stating that the delivery e-

mail notifications are set by default. The guidelines were amended in an updated version

published on line in February 2020 now bearing the correct information which explains that

the delivery notifications must be configured by the user through his personal area according

to a enable/disable icon at dataset level.

As for the issue of Stereo product ordering, the user confirmed that the issue is now clarified

with SCI support desk.

https://spacedata.copernicus.eu/documents/20126/0/StandardOrdering_02032020.pdf/9d964765-7c94-d51d-4b12-bae796b52fbc?t=1590680931618

https://spacedata.copernicus.eu/documents/20126/0/StandardOrdering_02032020.pdf/9d964765-7c94-d51d-4b12-bae796b52fbc?t=1590680931618




MARINE_EO6 commented:

In general, the user interface of the whole website is poor and the website flow/structure is not clear. This affects our processes given this is the only way to submit data requests. In any case, it is possible to create the requests.

EOMORES commented:

o The map works fine. However, it should be possible that this map already indicates when a shape file does not fulfil the criteria for an order. Now the help desk had to check that with the provider, communicate back to the project, we had to adjust the shape, submit again, helpdesk had to check etc.

o Very slow. o The whole system was way too complex, and the helpdesk helped us through

every type of mistake we could make. They were very friendly and were thinking along. Thanks helpdesk people!

ESA analysis: As a result of the first evolution cycle, as said above, a new version of the user interface will be released in July 2020. It will offer quite a number of improvements resulting from the collection of users’ needs and feedback on the existing tools. An early opening to Copernicus Services was done to collect feedback on the new version before its release. ESA acknowledges the problem faced with the rejection of specific AOIs due to constraints with some CCMEs that will be addressed in the contracts extension. ESA is asking CCMEs to accept any type of AOIs for catalogue search and ordering, removing any constraint (number of corners, minimum corner distance, narrow corridors, very acute corners and so on) and charging only the data of AOI requested.

4.3 SCI Support desk (interface with SCI, timeliness of enquiries and clarity of information)

EMS Risk and Recovery commented: o At the moment I have not had a very good experience for the aforementioned

reasons. However, the support desk people were always very kind and ready to provide clarifications.

ESA analysis: the user’s comment is strictly linked, as per user’s statement, to issues experienced during EO data ordering and therefore the comment is not attributable to the interface with SCI rather to the Standard ordering process and application.

MARINE_EO6 commented: o The interface via email or via the CDS portal is a slow manner of keeping track

of issues. o The workflow is very slow.

Even though the requests can be made via the website, those will be transformed into tickets in the Copernicus JIRA system waiting for the next available support person to read it.




Once finally that person reads the ticket then I'll receive the answers via email. Obviously this process takes days or weeks specially if there are doubts or suggestions as the communication is done in a question-answer way. Also, this gets worst since no progress happens outside working hours and days, which does not fit with our services and with business models based on satellite data acquisition times.

o ESA analysis: ESA would recommend allocation of quotas in rush datasets for the needs of MARINE_EO for faster access to the data and 24x7 support, therefore the project should submit its requirements for Rush mode to COM.

EOMORES commented: o The helpdesk did send very helpful emails

Public Authority commented:

o Helpful with registration confirmation issues

4.4 Data Access


o FTP@ PRISM is ok to access, but difficult to find out which was which order.

One partner never managed to log in with their own username. They were

doing it right, since they did get through with my username and password.

ESA analysis: In the case of download of products delivered within standard orders, ESA recommends to use the User Personal Area and/or PANDA for a more efficient and user-friendly access; as an example, in PANDA, the search for the data can be done by Request ID. Issues with login must be dealt with by informing SCI.

EMS Rapid Mapping commented on PANDA: o I am not sure if it is working properly, the last time I used it I did not get the

results I expected so I checked in the service providers web catalogues. In

general, it is a little bit slow.

ESA analysis: The issue was due to the way the search was set in Panda; SCI guided the user to set up the correct search for the GeoEye product of interest. The user later confirmed finding of results and resolution of issue.

Public authority commented:

o Data Access did not work with the ftp service (very unresponsive and dropped connection frequently) and it was much too much labor with PANDA and a browser to download all scenes for the VHR 2018 exercise.




This should be one link for a package or at least a script one can let run unattended on a server

o PANDA portal has some bugs (at least with my Firefox browser) e.g. need to reload portal to generate another query

o Content of ADD: no more access to old data, often really useful o Panda: the ESA SSO gives even day long sessions, but panda keeps the

session much shorter and forces to log in again. FIX, please. The window for seeing the list of products is too small and allowing max 200 products is annoying, Getting all assets into one csv should be simple

o Search of data is not easy (selection of catalogs), and I don't like the interface Personally, I preferred EolISA

ESA analysis: Public Authorities category has access to a huge amount of data from CORE datasets from both DWH Phase 1 and Phase 2 while the licensing policy does not allow access to Additional datasets from Phase 1 (2011-2014) but those from Phase 2 are fully accessible. The large majority of the data collected so far via the DWH remains therefore available. ESA confirms that if large volumes of data are to be downloaded, FTP is the best option but in all cases, all problems should be reported immediately to the SCI who will provide support and raise the anomalies for correction. The above-mentioned issues will be verified and corrected if reproducible.

PANDA catalogue V3.1 with several improvements was recently opened to Copernicus Services for a feedback collection that led to the rapid fixing of some minor bugs and the release of V3.2 on 09 June 2020.

Following the results of PANDA survey more potential improvements for future releases of the application were identified as follows:

Simplification of the Filter Panels splitting into Basic and Advanced. Include Natural Language Processing into Basic Filter.

Online help to be added for each relevant item in a menu in order to briefly document the specific functionality of an item without the need of searching into the User Manual.

Layout will be improved in order to avoid overlapping of sections and reduced visibility of results even in small devices and lower resolutions.

Number of results displayed in the Results Table will be customizable per user.

4.5 Service Performance

CMEMS commented:

o Sentinel-1 data dissemination sometimes exceeds 3 hours timeline ESA analysis: The user could not be more specific regarding the number of products that were delivered in delay as he was waiting for the conclusion of Ice season for producing




statistics in support of the impact assessment. The results once ready will be forwarded to S-1 PDGS and Mission Management.

EMS Risk & Recovery commented: o So far I cannot recall any order delivered within the 24h foreseen for a fast24

order

ESA analysis: The comment is linked to the issue described earlier by the same user in the standard ordering section, having experienced issues with the delivery notifications e-mails that the user failed enabling within his Personal Area due to an incorrect information reported in the Ordering guidelines document.

MARINE_EO6 commented: o The delivery only happens after discussions with Copernicus support team which

can take several days. This should be done in a few hours instead.

ESA analysis: The comment is neither related to issues regarding the delays during processing of the products nor with the delivery notifications which are correctly configured and happen regularly. The user’s concerns address the workflow/process of requesting new products in Standard mode involving several steps such as

Creation of the requests for products covering a given AoI and period specified via user personal area.

Iterations with SCI support desk on possible issues regarding the quota usage or data availability managed through alternative options offered by the support Team.

New request to be submitted as alternative (new vs archive) The user claims that many of the steps (availability of archive data, test for sufficient budget/quota, tasking feasibility, etc.) should be resolved by the system via an automatic feedback without the human intervention.

EOMORES commented:

o Our new acquisition image was there the same day!

4.6 Data Quality

CMEMS commented: o noise floor correction is needed in Sentinel-1 EW, the Service has developed a

patch – and hopefully IPF will not change ESA analysis: the user confirmed having solved the issue by developing a separate noise floor correction for the S-1 EW mode data but requested that any change by ESA to the IPF be communicated promptly and in detail as to avoid affecting the correction currently adopted on user’s side. The Sentinel-1 team has been notified of this request.

EMS Rapid Mapping commented:




o some issues were reported in the progress meetings with ESA (corrupted files, wrong data delivered, no data) but no major or systematic issue

ESA analysis: Incidents are escalated to CCMEs to avoid re-occurrence. If applicable, new user’s needs are discussed during the progress meetings and logged in the User Need Compendium document for follow up with the originator.


o The data that was available was good but most of the times there was no data available for our areas of interest and/or time period.

o Very slow response time for the resolution of quality issues ESA analysis: the first comment of the user is more related to data availability rather than quality as per user’s confirmation after consultation with Account Manager service. Regarding the timeliness of the resolution, user’s expectation would be to have a response within (maximum) one day. After checking logs of open tickets by the user during the surveyed period the resolutions times found were spanning between one and three days. Upon clarifications between the user and Account Manager service the comment "very slow response time" was agreed to be linked to the user’s aim for a machine-to-machine requests system because everything that needs to involve exchanging emails between different levels is not considered satisfactory. Some improvements were however recognized by the user in the response time from the support team via email in the last years.

4.7 Web Portal

EMS Risk and Recovery commented:

Usability; mis-information regarding to the TPM datasets that caused some trouble in an activation, that was communicated and after a few weeks corrected.

ESA analysis: the user wanted to request some ALOS Palsar archive data over Vietnam as part of ADD_013a and was referred to the TPM data access for data download however after several iterations with TPM support desk (Eohelp) It was clarified that ALOS Palsar data over Vietnam were not available because outside the European Node (ADEN). The misunderstanding by the user was caused by the lack of information on the coverage availability for ALOS Palsar which has been, since, added to the guidelines.

Public Authority commented: o Lots of unnecessary stuff - should concentrate on access to space data! o Overloaded layout imho! Could be solved by using full vertical screen dimensions.

ESA analysis: CSCDA web site is indeed full of information which may be considered redundant by Public Authority category but generally most useful to allow those users having




access to on demand data ordering via assigned quotas to get to know the what, where and the how. A new version of the portal was released in May and improves the look and feel.

5 11TH DWH RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

This section provides the status of the implementation of the recommendations received during the 11th DWH user satisfaction survey, by questionnaire element.

5.1 DAP document

Clarity and simplification were the targets pursued since last Survey; some information were moved to the Web (CCMEs specificities, minimum order size tables) in order to make the document slimmer and to allow immediate updates of such information rather than relying on DAP publications which nominally happen once or twice a year.

5.2 Data Ordering

New requirements for the evolution of PRISM System were consolidated and managed through the User Stories mechanism. Several User Stories were implemented and many others are foreseen in the next evolution cycles. The new version of the user interface (SPDM V7) will be transferred to operations in July 2020 as the result of the first evolution cycle; its new features are stemming from expressed user needs and are addressing the harmonisation of ordering interfaces and improving the data ordering efficiency. The main changes included in SPDM V7 are:

Modifications to the general look & feel, including GUI access to the functions of the application e.g. enhanced search functions for existing EO data requests, simplified interfaces for defining (or viewing) the parameters of EO data requests and a new button for estimating the quota consumption of EO data requests.

Single entry point for submitting both Standard Data Requests and SPERFs based on an harmonized input wizard.

Improved SRT online.

5.3 Data access

The consolidation of PANDA tool was pursued; an upgrade of PANDA was offered in May 2020 on a Demo platform to Copernicus Services for assessment prior to its release in operations on 09 June 2020 (V3.2). The most recent changes implemented were:

Quicklook mosaicking: represents the ability of the system to cut out the quicklook bounding box near the intersection points with the selected AOI.

Transparency Bar for product comparison: allows the visual comparison of two products that intersect the selected AOI.




Time Bar (Time Bar Monthly Subdivision/Time Bar Daily Subdivision): the feature allows quick products sub query in a (monthly/daily) time interval.

Enhanced and INSPIRE compliant catalogue. During 2019, Copernicus Services were able to test the access to CCMEs data via their specific platforms. Optical CCMEs offering missions in support to Emergency and Security Rush mode

activations have been involved in a project that implied the testing of the functionalites of

each of the access platform for viewing, exploiting and downloading the data.

Airbus DS FR

Deimos Imaging

Planet

Access to three platforms (Airbus DS FR, Deimos and Planet) was granted for around one

year between October 2018 and the end of 2019.

Several helpful functionalities have been identified through testing and summarised in the following three main groups of requirements.

System design

Functionality

Accounting

These requirements are to be taken into account not only for the different platforms evolution but, in particular, for a possible centralised access point, covering as well the requirements for the interfaces to access the remote CCME catalogues.

5.4 Performance

Improvements are already implemented in the on-line interface and will soon be available to users like the harmonised forms for Standard and Rush data requests, the SRT on-line in support of REACT Service, the improved User interface. Others like the improved registration process are in the pipeline. Efforts were also concentrated on improving overall performances of the data availability to users, through pilot platforms testing for example. Regarding the data delivery by CCMEs, new timeliness requirements and new Scenarios have been prepared and will be discussed with the Copernicus Contributing Missions in June 2020.

5.5 SCI support

The positive feedback regarding user support confirms the experience gained by the SCI team who started providing the service in June 2019. Several positive comments reflect the usefulness of SCI support desk especially when there is need to complete or clarify information provided to the users in guidelines or on line.




6 CONCLUSIONS

In Figure 23, the overall elements analysis across CSPs and URPs together shows that there are two CSCDA questionnaire elements rated as Satisfied/Very Satisfied: REACT and Service and Account Management support. All the others are rated Neutral/Satisfied.

Figure 23: Questionnaire item groups across EE/CSPs and URPs


Based on the 12th questionnaire results, the main topics where efforts should be concentrated are:

6.1 DAP document

o Continue document simplification and clarification of content. o Improve access and usability by implementing a Web version.

6.2 Data Ordering

o Consolidation of ongoing changes and new evolutions of the user interface. o Promote users’ involvement in the definition of requirements for the maintainer and

developer (User Stories) as well as the collection of user feedback prior to the transfer to operations of new releases of the application.

o Simplification of workflows, better performances for product availability and improved applications for standard ordering.

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Data Access Portfolio Document (DAP)

Data Ordering - Standard ADDITIONAL Datasets

SCI Support Desk

REACT Service

Data Access

Service Performance


Web Portal






o Decrease manual interactions.

6.3 Data Access

o Continue Panda improvements based on users’ feedback:

- User friendliness of the application

- Ensure robustness of catalogue availability

o Consolidate and implement inputs collected during the testing of data access via the Pilot platforms carried out by Copernicus Services.

6.4 Service performance

In order to improve the timeliness of data availability and coverage of different needs, ESA will discuss new requirements and scenarios with all Copernicus Contributing missions in June 2020 for implementation in 2021.




7 ANNEX A

This section presents the detailed rating records, per category, per user and per question.

Table 4: Rating/Frequency Abbreviations

S/VS Satisfied/Very Satisfied S Satisfied N/S Neutral/Satisfied

N Neutral D/N Dissatisfied/Neutral D Dissatisfied VD Very Dissatisfied M Monthly W Weekly F Few days a week D Daily


/44

11th Data Warehouse Data Access User Satisfaction Report

Issue Date xx/06/2020

EM

S R

ap

id

Ma

pp

ing

EM

S R

isk

an

d

Re

cov

ery

EM

S E

xte

rna

l V

ali

da

tio

n

FR

ON

TE

X

Ma

rin

e

En

vir

on

me

nt

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Se

rvic

e

How frequently do you access CSC-DA services and/or products? W W/F N/A F D

How satisfied are you with the usability of DAP Document? N/S S S S N/S

How satisfied are you with the overview of offered CSCDA Services, i.e. registration, data ordering, access to predefined datasets, and helpdesk support?

N/S S S S S/VS

How satisfied are you with the description of Data Offer for the identification of dataset of interest?

S S S S S

How satisfied are you with the content of CORE datasets? N/S S/VS S N/A S

How satisfied are you with the content of ADDITIONAL datasets? S S/VS S S N/S

DAP: Vertical Aggregation on CSP Level N/S S S S S

How satisfied are you with the usability of the Off-line Maps interface in your CSP Personal Area for submitting your data requests under Standard ADDITIONAL Datasets?

N/A S N/A S S/VS

How satisfied are you with the handling of Standard ADDITIONAL Dataset orders by the SCI Support Desk?

S N/S N/A S S/VS

Data Ordering: Vertical Aggregation on CSP Level S S N/A S S/VS

How satisfied are you with the interface with SCI? S N S VS S/VS How satisfied are you with the timeliness of enquiries handling ? S N/S S S S/VS How satisfied are you with the clarity of information received? S N/S S VS S/VS CDS SCI Support Desk: Vertical Aggregation on CSP Level S N/S S S/VS S/VS




EM

S R

isk

an

d

Re

cov

ery

EM

S E

xte

rna

l V

ali

da

tio

n

FR

ON

TE

X

Ma

rin

e E

nv

iro

nm

en

t M

on

ito

rin

g S

erv

ice

EM

S R

ap

id M

ap

pin

g

How satisfied are you with the REACT service (availability of operators, communication methods)?

S S N/A S/VS N/A

How satisfied are you with the responsiveness of the service? S/VS S/VS N/A S/VS N/A

How satisfied are you with the clarity of information received? VS S N/A VS N/A

How satisfied are you with the usability of the Service Project Emergency Request Form (SPERF) for specifying your data requests under Rush ADDITIONAL Datasets?

S S N/A VS N/A

REACT Service: Vertical Aggregation on CSP Level S/VS S N/A VS N/A

How often do you use the Copernicus Client (PANDA) tool for searching, browsing, and downloading products?

W/F N/A W M M

FTP@PRISM - access to Standard Datasets S N/A S S S FTP@PRISM - access to Rush Datasets N/A N/A N/A S S FTP@CCM - access to emergency data on CCME FTP server N/A N/A N/A VS N

FTP@CCM - access to systematic data deliveries for global or regional monitoring

N/A N/A N/A N/A S/VS

Copernicus Client (PANDA) tool N N/S N/A N N

Data Access: Vertical Aggregation on CSP Level N/S N/S S S S

How satisfied are you with the timeliness of data delivery within Standard ADDITIONAL Datasets?

S N N/A S N/S

How satisfied are you with the timeliness of data delivery within Rush ADDITIONAL Datasets?

S VS N/A VS N/S

How satisfied are you with the implementation of CORE Datasets (content, timeliness of data delivery)?

S S N/A N/A N/S

Service Performance: Vertical Aggregation on CSP Level S S N/A S/VS N/S

How often do you consult the Online CQC Catalogue? N/A N/A N/A M N/A

Was the data received during the course of the project of good quality for your application; if not, please provide some details about the anomalies?

Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes




EM

S R

ap

id M

ap

pin

g

EM

S R

isk

an

d

Re

cov

ery

EM

S E

xte

rna

l V

ali

da

tio

n

FR

ON

TE

X

Ma

rin

e E

nv

iro

nm

en

t M

on

ito

rin

g S

erv

ice

Were these anomalies raised to User Support (SCI/CQC) for further clarification?

No N/A Yes Yes Yes

Satisfaction about content of the answer? N/A S N/A VS N/S

Timeliness of the resolution? N/A S N/A VS N/S

Data Quality related matters: Vertical Aggregation on CSP Level N/A S N/A VS N/S

How often do you visit the web site? M/W M/W N/A M M/W

How satisfied are you with the usability of the web site? N N/S N/A S S How satisfied are you overall with the web site? S N/S N/A S S Web Portal: Vertical Aggregation on CSP Level N/S N/S N/A S S Clarification of data offer S S N/A VS S/VS

Cooperation in resolving issues S/VS S N/A VS S/VS Support in selecting data or products S/VS S N/A VS S/VS Account Management Support: Vertical Aggregation on CSP Level S/VS S N/A VS S/VS How satisfied are you overall with the CSCDA Services you receive? S N/S N/A VS S/VS How satisfied are you with the way problems are solved within CSCDA? S S N/A VS S/VS Overall Perception of CSCDA Services: Vertical Aggregation on CSP Level S S N/A VS S/VS

Table 5: 12th Survey – Ratings per Copernicus Service Provider (CSP) User




My

Su

sta

ina

ble

Fo

rest

EO

PE

N

MA

RIN

E_E

O6

EO

MO

RE

S

How frequently do you access CSC-DA services and/or products? W F D M

How satisfied are you with the usability of DAP Document? N VS D D/N

How satisfied are you with the overview of offered CSCDA Services, i.e. registration, data ordering, access to predefined datasets, and helpdesk support?

N VS N D/N

How satisfied are you with the description of Data Offer for the identification of dataset of interest?

S S S D/N

How satisfied are you with the content of CORE datasets? N/A S N N/S

How satisfied are you with the content of ADDITIONAL datasets? S S N N/S

DAP: Vertical Aggregation on URP Level S/N S N N

How satisfied are you with the usability of the Off-line Maps interface in your CSP Personal Area for submitting your data requests under Standard

ADDITIONAL Datasets? S N/A VD N

How satisfied are you with the handling of Standard ADDITIONAL Dataset orders by the SCI Support Desk?

S S D VS

Data Ordering: Vertical Aggregation on URP Level S S VD/D S

How satisfied are you with the interface with SCI? VS VS D N

How satisfied are you with the timeliness of enquiries handling ? VS VS VD S

How satisfied are you with the clarity of information received? VS VS N VS

CDS SCI Support Desk: Vertical Aggregation on URP Level VS VS D S

How satisfied are you with the REACT service (availability of operators, communication methods)?

S N/A N/A N/A

How satisfied are you with the responsiveness of the service? S N/A N/A N/A




My

Su

sta

ina

ble

Fo

rest

EO

PE

N

MA

RIN

E_E

O6

EO

MO

RE

S

How satisfied are you with the clarity of information received? S N/A N/A N/A

How satisfied are you with the usability of the Service Project Emergency Request Form (SPERF) for specifying your data requests under Rush

ADDITIONAL Datasets? N/A N/A N/A N/A

REACT Service: Vertical Aggregation on URP Level S N/A N/A N/A

How often do you use the Copernicus Client (PANDA) tool for searching, browsing, and downloading products?

W F N/A M

FTP@PRISM - access to Standard Datasets S N/A S N

FTP@PRISM - access to Rush Datasets S N/A S N/A

FTP@CCM - access to emergency data on CCME FTP server S N/A N/A N/A

FTP@CCM - access to systematic data deliveries for global or regional monitoring

S N/A N/A N/A

Copernicus Client (PANDA) tool S S N/A S

Data Access: Vertical Aggregation on URP Level S S S N/S

How satisfied are you with the timeliness of data delivery within Standard ADDITIONAL Datasets?

S S D VS

How satisfied are you with the timeliness of data delivery within Rush ADDITIONAL Datasets?

N/A S N/A N/A

How satisfied are you with the implementation of CORE Datasets (content, timeliness of data delivery)?

N/A S N/A S

Service Performance: Vertical Aggregation on URP Level S S D S/VS

How often do you consult the Online CQC Catalogue? M F N/A M

Was the data received during the course of the project of good quality for your application; if not, please provide some details about the anomalies?

Yes Yes No Yes

Were these anomalies raised to User Support (SCI/CQC) for further clarification? Yes Yes Yes No

Satisfaction about content of the answer? VS VS S N/A

Timeliness of the resolution? VS VS D N/A




My

Su

sta

ina

ble

Fo

rest

EO

PE

N

MA

RIN

E_E

O6

EO

MO

RE

S

Data Quality related matters: Vertical Aggregation on URP Level VS VS N N/A

How often do you visit the web site? W F M M

How satisfied are you with the usability of the web site? N S N S How satisfied are you overall with the web site? N S N S Web Portal: Vertical Aggregation on CSP Level N S N S

Clarification of data offer VS S S N/A

Cooperation in resolving issues VS S S N/A

Support in selecting data or products VS S S N/A

Account Management Support: Vertical Aggregation on URP Level VS S S N/A

How satisfied are you overall with the CSCDA Services you receive? S S D S/VS

How satisfied are you with the way problems are solved within CSCDA? S VS D VS

Overall Perception of CSCDA Services: Vertical Aggregation on URP Level S S/VS D VS Table 6: 12th Survey – Ratings per Union Research Project (URP) User

11th Data Warehouse Data Access User Satisfaction Report

Documents

Transcript of 11th Data Warehouse Data Access User Satisfaction Report