March 23, 2007 Focus Group

Owned by Former user (Deleted)
Last updated: Apr 01, 2008 by Joyce JohnstoneVersion comment
March 23, 2007 Focus Group

MyInfoVault User Focus Group

March 23, 2007, 203 Mrak

Minutes

Present: Pat Aguilera (L&S: Statistics), Kelly Anders (CA&ES: LAWR), Gina Anderson (Academic Senate), Crystal Barber (Academic Personnel), Carolyn Borgnino (Academic Personnel), Sharon Boylan (CBS: Microbiology), Marci Buell (Academic Senate), Amy Burnham (VM: Molecular Biosciences), Ruby Castillo (L&S: Statistics), Melanie Christensen (SOM: Internal Medicine), Nancy Dorsey (L&S: Sproul Social Science), Micki Eagle (L&S: Political Science), Judy Elliott (SOM:Pediatrics), Sharon Hein (VM:CAHFS), Lisa Howard (IET), Lisa Johnston (IET), Joyce Johnstone (IET), Joan Learned (VM: Molecular Biosciences),Connie Melendy (Academic Personnel), Tom Mezzanares (CBS: Plant Biology), Ellie O'Shea (SOM:Biochem & Molecular Medicine), Cynthia Roberts (SOM:Med Micro & Immunology), Marina Rumiansev (CBS: Microbiology), Babette Schmitt (IET), Amy Weaver (SOM: Cell Biology & Human Anatomy)

Connie Melendywelcomed the user group attendees, who were invited to view new releases and give candid feedback on the MIV program in order to make sure it is a strong, useful system that can be produced for the campus. Connie shared the history of the pilot, beginning with the development of a system to do effort reporting in the SchoolofMedicine, which morphed into a merit and promotion program, and gave an overview of the refactoring that has taken place in 2006-07. She shared information about what is being used for merits and promotions on other UC campuses. She also outlined some of the differences between MIV and home-grown programs in departments, such as the program relying on a robust data base back-end, which will also for multiple uses such as NIH training grant bio sketches, retrieving data for external reviews of programs, faculty fields of interest, potential for on-line student evaluations, and more. Because MIV is designed as an Enterprisesystem (meaning eventual campuswide implementation), development must proceed thoughtfully, which might seem cumbersome compared to a program addressing one or two departments' needs.

Lisa Johnston provided a brief demonstration of two new releases with improvements in MIV, to be released in the next few months, which was followed by a general discussion of the program, particularly focusing on usability, problem areas and what the program needs to make it really useful.  

User Feedback

After viewing the new enhancements, focus group participants were given a few minutes to write down their responses and provide feedback, which has been collected below.

March 2007 Enhancements

Citation storage database data split into individual fields:* Add an "other" category so we can make it whatever we want, i.e. review article.

  • Takes the guess work out of placing citations in the list.
  • Excellent - when will AgriCola be added?
  • Good improvements.
  • Add to note that if you don't want to continue, you should click "no" plus "back."
  • Actually indicate in CAPS that information in scratchpad isn't saved.
  • N/A - fields already broken out.
  • Makes input easier.
  • Looks good. I like the scratch pad. Consistency is great. Thank you for moving the pasted-in pub titles! Warning text is great.
  • Good but need special characters recognized in final PDF files when downloading pubs from PubMed.

May 2007 Enhancements

New special character interface for publication, extending knowledge and presentation screens.* Recognize special characters in Pub Med? Still have quick bar for characters that are not on the special characters list.

  • Nice.
  • Need italicizing/bold/underline easier for faculty to use in entry screens. Need super and subscript easier for faculty use. Need option to use straight and curly quotes for faculty ease of use. Prior to refactoring, if you entered html code, updated and then you go back into the entry the initial code was lost for special characters - has this been repaired?
  • Good.
  • Must use single quotes (double quotes create garbage).
  • Great; not able to use apostrophe.
  • Great enhancement.
  • Wonderful. Won't do super or subscript.
  • Great. Also use sub and superscripts, quotes, italics, apostrophe: can these be added in special character list?
  • Great for our scientific pubs - makes it much easier.
  • Please add a way to bold/underline, etc. Easier than coding, extra keystrokes. Also allow any punctuation.

The time it takes the system to create a packet improved (reduced).* Great. Sometimes I forgot what I was waiting for, it took so long.

  • Look forward to it.
  • Wonderful.
  • Every second of improvement is fabulous.
  • Thank you!

June 2007 Enhancements

Improved design for the login page, main menu and data entry screens.* Include numbering not only in packet - make it available on the previous screen.

  • Nice.
  • Much simpler - nice!

Improved menu navigation.* OK.

  • This is a definite improvement.
  • Add: Go back to point in list where you left off.
  • Should make navigation faster.

Publications data entry screens consolidated into one screen.* Can we tab from field to field? Yes. Drop-down for published, in press, submitted. When entering Pub #90, send us back to item #90, not item #1, on the list.

  • Should it be numbered? In Press items; Review articles. We change Limited Distribution to Review Articles - does not show until printed. Other category that we could change? Year field:
  • Items in press that faculty receive credit for in 2003 but are not published until another review period (say 2007) will appear as a new pub in their next action.
  • OK. Add role "consultant"
  • Pubs consolidated (looks good!)
  • Pub list should be numbered for ease in finding.
  • An "other" section to enter our own title. In press annotations. When you change the title it doesn't show. We need the year to be more than 4 digits. Need to make lines in more places like under Extending Knowledge.
  • Looks great - will have to get used to the new look and hope faculty don't gripe too much.  It would be nice to have presentations in this drop down menu.
  • Love darker lines demarcating years. Need to create ability to put in press above the line even if actual pub date was later.
  • Would like to see pubs numbered. Add Review Articles to list for pubs - changes do not show until printing. Add selection for "other" to make additional entries for renaming as appropriate (i.e., presentations). Add collaborator and researcher and consultant and postdoctoral. Draw lines under abstracts, books, book chapters, presentations, abstracts, reviews. More characters on [course] units - some are 3.5. Add "medical" for students. Upload evaluations.
  • Much better - consistency is better. Add "review articles." Additional categories for role: Trainer, Researcher, Consultant.
  • Add additional categories, i.e., invited reviews, other. When you edit a pub, please return to that pub in the main list instead of top of list (i.e. you are editing #90 of170 - return to #90, not #1 please). Also, please add pub # to sequence order (the "preview" page) so we actually see the #. Allow all letters to be PDF uploaded. "Other letters" do not - you have to cut and paste.
  • When you have to create a letter after PDF upload you should have that option on the screen that said uploaded - not having to go back 2 screens to create.

Grants and Contracts data entry screens consolidated into one screen* Any change Grants and Contracts will communicate with DaFIS?

  • Where are Honors and Awards?
  • For grants our college (CBS) likes information broken down into direct and indirect costs for current year total project.

Easier and faster adding, deleting and updating for data entry.* Contributions to Publications: Do not print button needed on extensive page.

  • Any chance student evaluation page will communicate with DESII JAJS report?
  • OK.
  • Speed is good!

New "drag and drop" resequencing.* Good reaction around the table. Add this feature to presentations? Number all entries regardless of what page (not necessarily a good idea for categories).

  • Presentations: resequencing.
  • Line drawing.
  • Make numbering available on the resequencing (renumbered upon clicking "update").
  • Excellent!
  • OK.
  • Great!
  • Excellent.
  • Absolutely fabulous! We have desperately needed this improvement. Add: Print yes/no for "contributions to jointly authored works."
  • Thank you!
  • Good idea; great improvement!

Improved Design Packet - Extensive screen.* Beautiful! Is line "drawing" still a feature in Extending Knowledge?

  • On Recommended Action form - some titles are long - allow formatting on PDF page so stays on one line - looks cluttered.

Additional comments:

  • In-press items are placed below the line currently if they were actually published after the review because the date of the pub = following year. Can we add a feature to in-press that would automatically sequence in press into correct order on pubs list after they are published?
  • Have faculty involved in how to enter data; the look and field of it - where do you click (here or here?). Needs clear layout - this is more user friendly and more intuitive.
  • Only 3 out of 200 faculty use it. Have a user manual for faculty (click here, click here, etc.).
  • Click box for "HELP" that sets up a comment box that stays there while you are in the screen (as in Word).
  • Font has to remain stable.
  • Keep help desk - appreciate that.
  • Remote access is a big plus. Really a big deal.
  • Is it worthwhile to put data into MIV for Step VIII? Yes - faculty with extremely large CVs were put in even though it was painful (SOVM).
  • Development of MIV has been wonderful - made my life better, even though the first year was awful and people in the office "cried." Now, 3 years later, we don't even remember the pain - it is wonderful (think this was from SM: Internal Medicine).
  • I teach my faculty and my willingness to do that helps them try to do it.
  • Want to upload student evaluations - even if PDF upload of DESII as an interim option until we can upload data from DESII.
  • Encourage Dean's Office staff who review packets when they are submitted to use MIV and know the system (including limitations such as no ability to draw a line in publications). They have to be flexible in using the on-line system.
  • Publish notes from this meeting and meet again as a group in 6 months.
  • Disclosure statement not until end when Dean's Office says so. Upload documents, i.e., joint department letter. Upload student evaluations. Train Dean's Office. Thank you for asking our opinion.
  • Many of our faculty have authored books and book chapters included in their permanently numbered pub list (i.e., they are all reported on what we call the "journal" list - do we need to move all those citations and submit renumbered pub lists?
  • A mandate of use should only happen, in my opinion, if faculty use is mandated.
  • In press forced above the line - ability to "draw the line" in all sections.
  • Entering new hires into MIV.
  • Difficulty giving access to WOS department faculty so they can review packets.
  • New listing makes it easier to spot items requiring editing.
  • For uploads from PDF files.
  • More meetings like this! The course sorting by date order is also a fabulous improvement. Ad addition: A resequencing functioning in the "Design My Packet." Need training for Deans' Office re: prior in press below the line.
  • Evaluations - could use space for a scale, i.e., high of 5 or 7, etc.
  • The in press/pub list - it belongs below line to be correct - work with Dean's Office to be consistent. If faculty member releases to department we should be able to make small changes, i.e., without having to release back to them (prior to disclosure signing).
  • While I think the concept of MyInfoVault is worthwhile, and it currently has some useful aspects, such as the ability of faculty to view files online, and the ability to update publications directly from Medline, I am not yet ready to sing its praises. I believe it needs some more changes in order to make it both user friendly and to make the whole process of preparing the merit or promotion packages facile. I have listed below some of the problems/concerns that I encountered while preparing merit packages last fall.

      1.When uploading DESII with candidates statement, can't distinguish the two files by name in the program. Also cannot resequence the file order e.g. if you need to make a change to the candidate's statement and upload a new version, you cannot place the file in front of the DESII file, but must upload DESII again.

      2. For the List of Evaluations, add a field where the total class enrollment can be entered

      3. For Teaching, Advising and Curricular Development, allow the entry of a range of more than one year for activities. Having to add -year in the text makes the presentation look unprofessional.

      4.For List of Service, please reverse the order of the fields for "role" and "Description" - i.e. put the order of these fields in the same order as the print-out is - otherwise it gets too confusing.

      5.Publications - for faculty with common last names, it would be easier if the default for the journals was NO instead of YES, that is, you must select the journals you want instead of the journals you don't want.

      6. Provide a place to list both the graduate students and postdocs in the lab, and there current location. Currently we are placing this information in Research, additional information.

      7. For Grants, decide what data you want entered, then make the fields for that data - e.g. current year direct costs, current year indirect costs etc. Currently we are placing all of this data in purpose/goal.

      8. After the packet is created, if even 1 change is made, the whole packet must be created again. Isn't there a way to change just the one file with the 1 change? It would make the process faster.

      9. The print-out from MIV prints out the documents in an order that is different from what is on the Provost's checklist.

      10. Some of the files would be easier to enter by uploading - e.g. the List of Service - rather than painstakingly entering data into fields. If format is the only concern, a format could be chosen and easily followed using Microsoft Word.

      11. Because of html formatting used in the program, special characters seen in MIV are often lost in the final PDF files. This often happens with downloads from Medline. The programmers should be able to rectify the situation so that files downloaded from Medline do not have to be translated into html format by us - that is the whole purpose of a program.

      PS - thanks for listening to the feedback and thank you for the help whenever I have called for help - the help has always been great!

If you are interested in helping to shape MyInfoVault by participating in a focus group, send an email to:miv-help@ucdavis.edu.