DART Project

DART PROJECTCommunication AnalyticsJanuary – April 2010

IN THIS REPORT:• Benchmarks/Trends• Analytics by deliverable• Recommendations

BASELINE SURVEY & WEB ANALYTICS

December 2009 Communications Survey

DART Project Familiarity (scale of 1-10)

• 15% - Very familiar (7-10)• 39% - Somewhat familiar (4-6)• 46% - Unfamiliar (0-3)

Correlation between unfamiliarity and perceived level of impact.Web Analytics:

Jan 2009 – April 2010Page-views

Unique Page-views

Bounce Rate

9,722 6,544 53%

DART Project Impact (scale of 1-10)

62% - low level of impact on their work at this time.

Response Rates = 23%• 42% Unit development• 36% OUD• 7% Financial • 4% ITS• 11% Other

Low financial response may reflect engagement and interest level by this community

High level view of site activity over the last 16 months

Traffic driven from targeted emails, so most people land on a particular announcement or article, then “bounce” out of the site.

DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE COMMUNITIES’ EXPOSURE TO THE DART PROJECT

Web Analytics

Dates Pageviews Unique Pageviews

Jan 1 – March 4 2009 1,487 992

Jan 1 – March 4 2010 3,909 2,527

DART DemonstrationsTitle Date Attendees/Views

OUD Gift Officers 12/2009 Approx. 45

Med School Development 01/2010 Approx. 20

OUD Program Managers 02/2010 Approx. 20?

Online Demo 02/2010 242 unique views

DART Constituent Previews 02-03/2010 Approx. 75

Approximately *20-50% of the development and finance communities have seen DART base

product

Comparing years:

60% increase in site activity.

*Fluctuates when counting unique views as individual staffCalculations based on latest In the Know list (667)

GAUGING CONFIDENCE LEVELSConfident that: Communications Survey

Dec 09DART will meet needs or DART is

• 50% Agree• 50% Neither agree nor

disagreeDesign teams will address concerns

• 58% Agree• 42% Neither agree nor

disagree

Level of confidence: Exit surveys from DART previews Feb & March 10

Base product without specific customizations and configurations for U-M.

•31% Low confidence (0-3)•52% Moderate confidence (4-7)•22% High confidence (8-10)

Concerns about Constituent functionality in DART will be adequately addressed by design team members.

•13% Low confidence (0-3)•44% Moderate confidence (4-7)•43% High confidence (8-10)

Confidence at the broad community level appeared high in December.

Confidence levels dip slightly when we look at smaller groups viewing the ‘vanilla’ product.

This could be seen as the “reality effect” for folks.

We expect confidence to fluctuate – particularly through change management.

Data from future demos will help us identify trends of low confidence to better address concerns.

MAJOR COMMUNICATION DELIVERABLESAnalytics on Newsletter & Demonstrations

DELIVERED COMMUNICATIONS

• Newsletter Issue 1

• Newsletter Issue 2

• Newsletter Issue 3

• Newsletter Issue 4

July 09 Sept 09 Dec 09 Jan 10 Feb 10 March 10 April 10

• BaselineSurvey

• Recorded Demo

• Previews (6)

• Dev Council

• Dev Council

• Dev Council

• Dev Council

• Project Update Email

• Med Demo

• Program Managers Demo

• LSA Demo

• Change Management Planning & DCC

• Canned Updates

Online communications

Live Demonstrations

Live Project UpdatesVision & Change Management

LIVE PROJECT UPDATESDevelopment Council Presentations• Every 6-8 weeks• Emphasis on ‘new’ and ‘fresh’ material• Rotate presenters (not always the Project Manager)

Canned Updates• Given to project and design team members• Enables members to easily share information with colleagues• Promotes consistent messaging across units• Package of communication materials includes:

• PowerPoint slides• 30 second key message• Links to the latest newsletter• Recent additions to the FAQ

Over time, we’ve tweaked presentation content based on informal qualitative feedback Chrissi receives and shares.

The March update was accessed 63 times.

DART NEWSLETTERMonth/Issue

Content Delivered DARTClick-through Rate

In the KnowClick-throughRate*

July 2009 •Message from Jefferson•Volunteer Recruitment & Info•Contract Signing•Project Core Team Intro

13% N/A

Sept 2009

•DART Implementation phases/timing•Volunteer start dates + effort estimates•Constituent Design Team

13% 23%

Jan 2010 •Project Updates on Design•DART Survey Results•DART Preview screenshots

31% 33%

April 2010 •DART Project Update on Design•DART Constituent Preview Feedback•DART News Feed•Revenue Design Highlights

6.25%(note, a full month’s of analytics not yet available)

N/A

• DART email list includes over 200 Finance + ITS contacts – so clickthrough rates reflect a broad audience

• Industry average for emails of this size: 7%*

• Tweaks to content, based on baseline survey results, are having a positive impact

• “Plugging” the newsletter in “In the Know” boosts visibility.

RECORDED DEMONSTRATION

Follow-up Survey Results:•76% interested in seeing another demo•93% Length of each module was just right•100% Presentation content easy to understand•97% thought presentation content was Good•86% would recommend to a colleague

February 15 – April 30Unique Pageviews 242

The online demo is one of our most popular posts.

It’s an efficient way to share functionality.

However, real data cannot be used in recordings.

“Fake” data must be used for security purposes.

DART PREVIEWS

Positive feedback themes:

• User-friendly• Interface design and

integration• Records relationship

and data management

Business Process feedback themes:

• Strategy on access/permissions

• Data input and clean-up• Support at launch and

beyond

Product functionality feedback themes:

• Capturing information• Default views (e.g. for

education)• Interface (e.g. pop-out

windows)• Integration with social media,

productivity tools, and financial system

• Reporting

Most people had questions about “how to do X in DART” or “how will DART do X”

DART DemonstrationsTitle Date Attendees/Views

OUD Gift Officers 12/2009 Approx. 45

Med School Development

01/2010 Approx. 20

OUD Program Managers

02/2010 Approx. 20?

DART Constituent Previews

02-03/2010 Approx. 75

Less efficient in reaching many. However, real data can be used.

31% reported low confidence in base product with no customizations.

Confidence levels can falter as people see incomplete views of the product.

RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY OVERVIEW:

Build Awareness

• Start gaining buy-in• Identify areas of potential

resistance

Prepare for change

• Educate + train• Address areas of resistance

Stabilize

• Listen and respond to problems

• Maintain bi-directional communication

Fall 2010 Fall 2011Spring/Summer 2010

Integrates and supports the Change Management Approach

THINGS TO CONTINUE: Plugging the newsletter in “In the Know”

Face to face communications Dev Council Program Managers Gift Officers Directors Schools, Colleges, and Units

Creating sharable key messages “Canned update” for design team members to use when giving

updates to their unit staff

Recorded Demonstrations Efficient way to reach many Positively received

THINGS TO CHANGE/DO Don’t Presume info in the Newsletter is “old news”

Not everyone is reading it It’s okay to re-use content in live updates, e.g. Dev

Council

Improve communications data Insert questions in Dev Council survey Create and disseminate a survey through canned

updates with design team members

Start the Unit Liaison Program