IS428 AY2019-20T2 Assign ARINO ANG JIA LER

From Visual Analytics for Business Intelligence
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Overview

Background

Every two years, SMU Libraries conduct a comprehensive survey in which faculty, students and staff have the opportunity to rate various aspects of SMU library's services. The objective of the survey is to provide these libraries with input to help improve existing services as well as information regarding anticipating emerging needs of SMU faculty, students (undergraduates and postgraduates), and staff. The latest survey ended on 17th February 2020. The past reports are mainly made-up of large numbers of pages of tables, which are difficult to comprehend. The difficulty in comprehension has resulted in the inability to draw useful information that could help SMU Libraries in making the necessary improvements or changes.

Objective

The aim of this project is to design a better dashboard/report that would allow SMU Libraries to extract valuable insights from the perspective of undergraduate students, postgraduate students, faculty, and staff. The dashboard designs would mainly surround the responses of each assessment item in the survey (e.g. services provided by the library) as well as the net promoter score. There would also be some focus on the sub-attributes of people who provide certain responses (e.g. attributes of respondents who are unhappy with a certain service provided by the library).

Data preparation

Dataset

The dataset provided in this project is the 2018 Library Survey dataset. In this dataset, there are 89 variables and 2639 responses. 26 of the 88 variables are not applicable (NA01 – NA26), thus, we are excluding these 26 variables. There is 1 identifier variable used to uniquely identify each response (ResponseID)

For the remaining 62 variables, 26 of them measures the importance of each assessment (i01 – i26), and the other 26, based on the same questions, measures the performance of each assessment (P01 – P26). There is 1 variable on overall satisfaction of the library, measured using performance as well (P27). All assessment variables are based on Likert Scale data.

The remaining 9 variables provides information on respondent behaviour (Campus, HowOftenL, HowOftenC, HowOftenW), characteristics (StudyArea, Position, ID), net promoter score (NPS1) and an open-ended comment section (Comment1).

Data cleaning & transformation

Screenshots Description
Dc1.png

Figure 1.0: Hiding of columns

  • Na01 to Na26 columns are hidden and not used in the analysis and the design of dashboard.
Dc2.png

Figure 2.0: Pivoting of Columns

  • Pivot all the assessment items, i01 – i26, and P01 – P27.
Dc3.png

Figure 3.0: Renamed Columns

Dc4.png

Figure 3.1: Aliases for Assessment Items

  • Pivot Field Name and Pivot Field Value are renamed into Library Assessment Items and Assessment Score respectively.
  • Each value of Library Assessment Items is also given an alias that best represents the question in the survey.
  • Aliases are labelled (I) at the back to represent Importance and (P) to represent performance. This step is necessary to identify whether an Assessment Score represents Importance or Performance.
Dc5.png

Figure 4.0: Columns with new Aliases

Dc6.png

Figure 4.1: Aliases for Campus

Dc7.png

Figure 4.2: Aliases for Position

Dc8.png

Figure 4.3: Aliases for Study Area

  • The values of Campus, Position, and Study Area are also given aliases for better comprehension.
Dc9.png

Figure 5.0: Renamed Columns

Dc10.png

Figure 5.1: Aliases for 3 values of frequency

  • How Often L, How Often C, How Often W, and Nps1 are renamed to Library visit frequency, Campus visit frequency, Library resource access frequency, and Net Promoter Score respectively.
  • The 3 values of frequency are also given aliases for better comprehension.
  • All 3 frequency variables have values with the same properties, visit frequency decreases as value is increased (e.g. 1 – daily, 5 – never).
Dc11.png

Figure 6.0: Groups for Library Assessment Items

Dc12.png

Figure 6.1: Groups for Net Promoter Score

Dc13.png

Figure 6.2: Groups for Position

  • Groups are also created for Library Assessment Items, Net Promoter Score, and Position.
  • Some of the groups would function as filters, others for calculation and hierarchical purposes.
Dc14.png

Figure 7.0: Collection of Sets

Dc15.png

Figure 7.1: Sample of a set using Postgraduate

Dc16.png

Figure 7.2: Sample of filter interface using Postgraduate Set

  • Sets are created to act as filters. For example, users who are using the Postgraduate dashboard should only be able to select either Masters or Doctoral from Position and not Year 1 as Year 1s are not Postgraduates.
  • For the remaining Undergraduate, Faculty, and Staff Sets, the values that should not be part of the set are excluded.
  • The Assessment Set was created initially to exclude the Overall Satisfaction values. However, throughout the creation of the dashboard, I decided to integrate Overall Satisfaction into the filters. This step is not necessary.
Dc17.png

Figure 8.0: The 3 new measures created for NPS

Dc18.png

Figure 8.1: Formula for Detractors

Dc19.png

Figure 8.2: Formula for Promoters

Dc20.png

Figure 8.3: Formula for NPS

  • 3 new measures are created for calculation of Net Promoter Score as I want to display the Net Promoter Score value alongside its distribution.
Dc21.png

Figure 9.0: Sheet used for creation and verification of Diverging stacked bar chart variables

Dc22.png

Figure 9.1: Collection of Measures created for the Diverging stacked bar chart

  • Following instructions provided during class on creating diverging stacked bar charts by Prof Kam, I have dedicated a worksheet for the creation and verification of variables required for the chart.
  • The 6 variables required are Count Negative, Gantt Percent, Gantt Start, Percentage, Total Count, and Total Count Negative.
Dc23.png

Figure 10.0: Collection of Sorting variables

Dc24.png

Figure 10.1: Formula for Score Sort (Highest)

Dc25.png

Figure 10.2: Formula for Score Sort (Lowest)

  • 2 variables Score Sort (Highest) and Score Sort (Lowest) are created to sort the diverging stacked bar charts later on.
  • Score Sort (Highest) allows the stacked bar chart to be sorted by the highest number of positive responses to the lowest number of positive responses (e.g. For the assessment items pertaining to importance, I want to display the most important assessment items at the top, and the least important assessment items at the bottom)
  • Score Sort (Lowest) allows the stacked bar chart to be sorted by the highest number of negative responses to the lowest number of negative responses (e.g. For the assessment items pertaining to performance, I want to display the lowest performing assessment items at the top, and the highest performing assessment items at the bottom)
  • These 2 variables would help to answer questions like “What are the Top 5 most important components of the library?” and “What are the Top 5 most underperforming components of the library?”
  • Higher weightage is given to Assessment Scores at extreme ends (e.g. 1 and 7). This helps to magnify Assessment Items that users have stronger feelings towards (e.g. importance score of 7 is assumed to invoke feelings of higher importance than an importance score of 5)
Dc26.png

Figure 11.0: Global filter for the entire Dashboard

  • As there are several Null values for Assessment Scores that is not useful for the analysis, a global filter is created to filter out all Assessment Scores with Null values.

Dashboard

Storyboard Link

Link to storyboard: https://public.tableau.com/profile/arino#!/vizhome/IS428_Assignment_Tableau_Arino/Storyboard

Storyboard Overview

Storyboard.png

Overall level of service

Overall Satisfaction of Library

Performance ranking of Assessment Items

Importance ranking of Assessment Items

Net Promoter Score

Levels of service perceived by each Group

Undergraduates

Postgraduates

Faculty

Staff

Additional Tooltips

Analysis & Insights

For the following sections, we would explore the data based on each major group of library users. However, there would be some cross referencing and comparison across the major groups. There would also be different levels of analysis for each major group or subgroup depending on what is relevant.

Undergraduate Students

Importance

Performance

Net Promoter Score

Postgraduate Students

Importance

Performance

Net Promoter Score

Faculty

Importance

Performance

Net Promoter Score

Staff

Importance

Performance

Net Promoter Score