Comparative Analysis Research Report · parallel competitors. We profiled the Ross School of Business an d the University of Michigan Career Center sites as direct competitors, and

Comparative Analysis Research Report Team 5 Engineering Career Resource Center Website (career.engin.umich.edu) Sybil Boone, Abishek Dewan, Sheela Doraiswamy, Huaying Song, Stephanie Wooten Word count: 3854

SI 622 GROUP 5 1

Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 Findings and Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 7

Finding 1: ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Evidence 1: ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Recommendation 1: ................................................................................................................................. 8 Finding 2: ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 Evidence 2: ................................................................................................................................................... 9 Recommendation 2: ............................................................................................................................... 10 Finding 3: .................................................................................................................................................... 10 Evidence 3: ................................................................................................................................................. 11 Recommendation 3: ............................................................................................................................... 13 Finding 4: .................................................................................................................................................... 13 Evidence 4: ................................................................................................................................................. 13 Recommendation 4: ............................................................................................................................... 14 Finding 5: .................................................................................................................................................... 14 Evidence 5: ................................................................................................................................................. 14 Recommendation 5: ............................................................................................................................... 15

Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................... 16 Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................... 17 References ...................................................................................................................................................... 18 Appendix A: Comparative Analysis Matrix ........................................................................................ 19 Appendix B: Individual Notes from Comparative Analysis ......................................................... 20

SI 622 GROUP 5 2

Executive Summary Objective This report focuses on the Engineering Career Resource Center (ECRC) website (http://career.engin.umich.edu/) for the School of Engineering at the University of Michigan (UM), an information portal for both students/alumni of the school of engineering and employers. This report presents the findings and recommendations for improving the website based on our comparative analysis of five other career and job-search related websites. Methodology For this analysis, we reviewed and profiled five different websites as direct, indirect, and parallel competitors. We profiled the Ross School of Business and the University of Michigan Career Center sites as direct competitors, and LinkedIn as an indirect competitor. We chose two different college career center sites, the University of Rochester Career & Internship Center, and the University of California Berkeley Career Center, as parallel comparators. We evaluated these websites based on the key dimensions of navigation, aesthetics, information provided for target populations, and functionality. Findings and Recommendations Finding 1: A number of different methods may be employed in order to promote the Corporate Partner Logos. Recommendation 1: The ECRC should consider changing the location and size of its corporate partner logos. Finding 2: Other comparable websites are streamlined by avoiding redundancy in the information they provide or the navigation structure they employ. Recommendation 2: Streamline the navigation by having only one navigation bar and add a “Quick Links” section to the most frequently accessed pages. Finding 3: The search feature on other comparable websites effectively provide users with accurate and specific information. Recommendation 3: Improve search functionality on the website, so that search results link to pages within containing relevant information. Finding 4: Facilitating networking opportunities between students/alumni and employers are an important part of other websites. Recommendation 4: Include a Networking category under the Students and Alumni section. Finding 5: FAQ’s and Quick Links are a useful way of providing information about the most important resources to the users. Recommendation 5: Create frequently accessed resource links and categorize the website content.

SI 622 GROUP 5 3

http://career.engin.umich.edu/

Introduction The Engineering Career Resource Center (ECRC) provides career planning resources and services to students and alumni at University of Michigan College of Engineering. The ECRC also connects employers with engineering undergraduate and graduate students as well as alumni. The ECRC website (http://career.engin.umich.edu/) serves as a single source of information for the various activities and services that the ECRC provides. The primary audience of the website is University of Michigan students and alumni, with a secondary audience of companies seeking to recruit these students. Our previous evaluations provided an interaction map, qualitative data from interviews, personas and scenarios, and qualitative and quantitative data from a survey. From these evaluations, we found that the ECRC website can be a good starting point that connects students and alumni to employers. However, some changes are needed to distinguish the ECRC website from ENGenius.Jobs (the engineering job search engine) and to emphasize the most desirable resources for its target users. Using these previous findings as a foundation, we conducted a comparative analysis to understand how other career center websites structure their information for their site’s users. As with previous evaluations, we chose to focus on the following two sections of the website: 1) Students/Alumni - For students and alumni the ECRC website provides resources that are aimed at helping them in their career development, including career fair information, on-campus interview preparation, information session details, workshop notifications, résumé and cover letter samples, the “Career Manual for Students” handbook, salary guide, a link to ENGenius.Jobs, and information about the “Suited for Success” program. 2) Employers - The ECRC hosts a number of services that help employers create a presence at the University of Michigan campus. Amongst them are career fair participation guides, on-campus interview setup, information session preparation, contact information, the “Guide for Recruiters” handbook, salary guide, a link to ENGenius.Jobs, Cooperative Education Program introduction, hiring international students FAQ, etc. The comparative analysis provided valuable information regarding how other websites offering similar services as the ECRC structure their information for students and employers. This information led to findings that both reiterate previous ones and provide new possible areas of focus for future research surrounding the ECRC website.

SI 622 GROUP 5 4

Methods

We examined five websites that operate at different levels of comparison with the ECRC. According to Goodman, et al. (2012) “understanding which of your competitors’ strategies work and which don’t is critical to understanding what will work with your product” (p. 73). Therefore, evaluating the effectiveness of various components of each comparable website provided an understanding of how the ECRC could better serve their community of users. Based on our previous research, we developed four research questions for this comparative analysis:

• How do other comparable websites organize job search information for both students and employers?

• How do aesthetics of a job search website affect the overall impact of that website? • How do other comparable websites differentiate information for various target

audiences? • What functionalities are prioritized on similar job search websites?

In order to complete this analysis, we first identified and profiled five job search related websites that were comparable to the ECRC. The websites were selected due to their varying relations to the ECRC website, primarily as direct competitors, indirect competitors, and parallel comparators. Direct competitors are websites that provide the same function to the same people in the same way (Schoenebeck, 2014). Indirect competitors, on the other hand, offer a similar function but in a different manner. They are websites or other interactive systems that can result in the same outcome but via a very different manner or form. Finally, parallel comparators offer a similar function to a similar audience via a similar channel (Schoenebeck, 2014). The following sections provide basic overviews of these five websites: 1) The University of Michigan Ross School of Business Student Career Services & Recruiter Information (Direct Competitor) - These two pages operate as a source of job search and recruiting information related to the Ross School of Business. The Ross School was selected as a direct competitor because our survey research indicated that many ECRC employers also use the Ross School of Business to recruit University of Michigan students. 2) The University of Michigan Career Center (Direct Competitor) - This website serves as a hub for all University of Michigan students and employers and their respective job search/recruiting needs. This website was also selected as a direct competitor due to results from our survey. 3) LinkedIn (Indirect Competitor) - LinkedIn is a social networking website that allows job seekers to set up profiles based on their resumes. Recruiters and other employers can browse these profiles for potential employees, while job seekers can network with friends, family, classmates and past employers to help further their job search. Although it is a social networking site, 6 out of the 7 students on our survey mentioned that LinkedIn was a resource they used for their job search.

SI 622 GROUP 5 5

4) The University of Rochester Career & Internship Center (Parallel Comparator) - The University of Rochester is a private school with a highly ranked engineering graduate program. It does not offer individual career center websites for individual programs; therefore we analyzed their University-wide Career Center website. There may be some overlap in employer audiences but overall the audiences are likely fairly diverse since Rochester’s Career website is for the entire university population and all employers who may be recruiting them. Therefore, we labeled this website a parallel comparator. 5) The University of California, Berkeley Career Center (Parallel Comparator) - This website serves as the primary location for all job search and recruiting information for the University of California, Berkeley. Similar to UM, UC Berkeley is a public school with a highly ranked engineering program. Also like Rochester, UC Berkeley’s career center website services the entire school. For this reason we labeled this website a parallel comparator. Next, we determined four categories of assessment based on our previous research from interviews and surveys. We evaluated each website’s structure of information, aesthetics, how well they differentiated between the two primary target populations, and their basic functionality as a job search/recruiting website. We selected a number of key dimensions for each of these categories and used those to rate the overall success of the websites (See Appendix A). Finally, each member of our team took a different website and completed an analysis matrix for that specific site (Appendix B). As part of this analysis matrix, we assigned ratings to the previously determined key dimensions for each website. These ratings ranged from 1-5 (1 being non-existent and 5 being excellent). We then collectively discussed our individual findings. Our ratings determined which sites were more successful than the others. From our individual findings we developed a series of overall findings and recommendations based on both the successful and unsuccessful elements of each comparative website.

SI 622 GROUP 5 6

Findings and Recommendations Finding 1: A number of different methods may be employed in order to promote the Corporate Partner Logos. As a requirement of the Corporate Partner Program, the companies that join the program have their logos displayed on the website of the ECRC (Figure 1, below). However, this part of the webpage is the central focus of the landing pages for both the student and the employer’s section, and takes the focus away from other important information that may be present on the page.

Figure 1 ECRC Corporate Partner Program Logos

Evidence 1: To illustrate the effective placement and branding of the corporate partner logos, we examined the career center websites at the University of Rochester and UC Berkeley (Figure 2, below). Both of these websites present their corporate partner logos in a way that neither competes with nor overshadows other important aspects of their websites. These websites also list their most important resources directly on the main page. The two methods that were used to manage these logos were:

• List some of the logos and then provide a link that gives the user more information if the user chooses to see it.

• Use a slider mechanism that cycles through the corporate logos. This approach does not require too much space and can be used to list as many logos as necessary.

SI 622 GROUP 5 7

Figure 2 Corporate Partner Program Logos for University of Rochester (left) and UC Berkeley Career Center (right) Recommendation 1: Although the placement of the ECRC logos provides some information about the various companies that work with the ECRC, we believe that this should not be the central focus of the website. As shown by our comparative analysis, there is a better way to manage the corporate partner logos. The ECRC website’s primary focus should be to facilitate access to resources that are most helpful to their users. Therefore, we recommend that the ECRC change the size and the positioning of the corporate partner logos so they are not the central focus of the website. Finding 2: Other comparable websites are streamlined by avoiding redundancy in the information they provide or the navigation structure they employ. The ECRC website provides a good number of navigation options; however the website’s two main navigation menus present almost identical information to site visitors. Some of the drop down menus’ links are also present in the main navigation menu bar. These duplicate links lead to redundancy across the website and may lead to confusion amongst users because the repetition of links leads to the same resource throughout the ECRC (Figure 3, below).

SI 622 GROUP 5 8

Figure 3 ECRC Navigation Menus

Evidence 2: Navigation menus are a critical part of any website as they allow the user to easily move through the various web pages on a website. Moreover, they are highly useful when it comes to websites that have a high number of resources. The ECRC website’s navigation menus provide redundant information as they both have identical links. Moreover, some of the links lead directly to other resources outside the scope of the website (Google Docs, PDF files, etc.) these links end up cluttering the drop down menus. The ECRC competitors demonstrate how to provide users with a highly effective and concise navigation menu. LinkedIn provides its users with a single navigation menu with drop down items that contain no more than 3 items at any given time (Figure 4, top-right). The navigation menu is simple and provides all the relevant links in one single navigation bar.

SI 622 GROUP 5 9

Like the ECRC website, the UC Berkeley Career Center website has two major navigation bars; however they provide completely different links to the users. The top menu bar is to navigate between the different sections of the website, whereas the side menu provides more in depth information about the different pages that are available to the user (Figure 4, bottom-left).

Figure 4 Navigation Menus for UM Career Center (top-left), LinkedIn (top-right) and University of California - Berkeley (bottom-left) Recommendation 2: Based on our research of ECRC's competitors, we recommend that the ECRC streamline their navigation menu by removing one of the navigation bars to cut down on redundancy. Moreover, a “quick links” section on the homepage would help facilitate the most frequently used and other helpful information on the website. Finding 3: The search feature on other websites effectively provide users with accurate and specific information. The ECRC website is a large repository of resources that are of use to both students and employers, however navigating these resources can be a cumbersome process without a

SI 622 GROUP 5 10

proper search function. The ECRC website provides users with a search bar (Figure 5, below), but the search functionality rarely provides information relevant to the user’s performed query.

Figure 5 ECRC Search bar

Evidence 3: To search for resume samples, we entered the query “resume samples” into the search bar of the ECRC website (Figure 6, below). The first result in the query links back to the ECRC website, and returns to the homepage rather than the page that contains the resume samples. The ECRC website’s search function fails to provide users with the relevant search results that the user might be looking for. Furthermore, it may confuse users as most of the links on the search results page take the user away from the ECRC website to the Michigan Engineering Website. Some of the competitor’s sites have highly accurate search functionalities. To check the accuracy of their sites’ search function, we ran the same query “resume samples” through their respective search engines (Figure 7, below). An identical query search produces different results in the search function of the ECRC and its competitor’s websites. In all of the examples, the most relevant results occupy the first two positions in the list of results. Surprisingly, all three of the websites shown in Figure 7 used Google’s Enterprise Search Solution (http://www.google.com/enterprise/search/) to power the search functionality on their websites.

SI 622 GROUP 5 11

http://www.google.com/enterprise/search/

Figure 6 Results of the query “resume samples” on ECRC website

SI 622 GROUP 5 12

Figure 7 Results of the query “resume samples” for UM Career Center (top-left), Ross School of Business Career Center (top-right) and University of California - Berkeley (bottom) Recommendation 3: Having analyzed the competitors of the ECRC website, it is our recommendation that the ECRC improve the search functionality of their website. The search results need to link back to the specific pages that contain the queried information. Moreover, it would be useful for the ECRC to leverage the partnership between the University of Michigan and Google, to include Google’s Enterprise Search Solution (http://www.google.com/enterprise/search/) into the ECRC website. Finding 4: Facilitating networking opportunities between students/alumni and employers are an important part of other comparable websites. Networking is an important job search and career development process, yet the ECRC website does not provide resources and tips for students on building their network with alumni and employers. Evidence 4: The competitors are providing networking resources for students. The UM Career Center website has a Networking Resources section that gives tips on establishing a network, identifying contacts, using LinkedIn and informational interview (Figure 8, left image below). The University of Rochester Career Center website also offers networking resources that help student make connections (Figure 8, right image below). The UC Berkeley Career Center has @cal Career Network that helps students to connect with alumni who are in their career fields of interest.

SI 622 GROUP 5 13

http://www.google.com/enterprise/search/

Figure 8 Examples of networking resources from UM Career Center (left) and University of Rochester (right) Recommendation 4: The ECRC website can include a Networking category under the Students and Alumni section to provide resources and tips for students to develop connections with engineering alumni or employers. LinkedIn is a great resource for establishing a networking and it can be a helpful that the ECRC website provide additional information to help students refine their LinkedIn profiles. Finding 5: FAQ’s and Quick Links are a useful way of providing information about the most important resources to the users. The ECRC website provides good resources for students and employers, yet some resources have deep links and are difficult to find which prevents their accessibility. The organization of information does not facilitate the fulfillment of user goals and needs adequately. Some important resources such as resumes and cover letters may require a number of clicks on the part of the user to be able to access them. Moreover, the website lacks organization of the data, which requires that users check multiple pages before finding the resource they might be searching for. Evidence 5: The UM Career Center website provides Quick Links as shortcuts for users to quickly dive into resume resources, cover letter resources, etc. (Figure 9, left image below). The UC Berkeley Career Center categorizes information by user tasks and interests in addition to user groups. Berkeley also provides Quick Links that contains an A-Z Index. An even better feature of the website is the “By Interest” box that serves as a hub to all resources related to a user’s interest (Figure 9, right image below). Most competitors use the FAQs as a tool to infer user needs and to offer resources to fulfill those needs. FAQs can be in general about the whole website or more specific to some sections on the website. The Ross Career Services website provides general FAQs about Career Services, which gives some quick information about the organization. The UM Career Center website provides a good example in providing FAQs specific to a topic (e.g. fairs, reference letter service), which provides some quick information related to that topic.

SI 622 GROUP 5 14

Figure 9 Examples of shortcuts and interest-based search from UM Career Center (left) and UC Berkeley Career Center (right).

Recommendation 5: According to Cooper, A. et al. (2007), considerate products anticipate human needs and are forthcoming and conscientious. That is to say, a successful system should know user needs beforehand and provide services accordingly. It should not only provide information that user’s request, but also voluntarily offer all things related to those users’ tasks. Our survey results and findings found that the most frequently accessed resources on the website include the Salary Guide, Recruiters Handbook and Student Handbook as well as details on workshops, career fairs, and information sessions. These resources can be put on the homepage as Quick Links to save users’ time and efforts of finding them. In addition, the content of the website can be categorized by user goals (e.g. finding internships, establishing networks) with links to all relate resources placed under each category. Additionally, FAQs can be collected and put on the website to provide quick help and important information.

SI 622 GROUP 5 15

Discussion Our comparative analysis provided us with a better understanding of how other websites with similar functionalities as the ECRC, structure and presents their resources. We were able to see what worked and did not work for competitive and comparable websites. However, there are factors that may have impacted the preciseness of our findings. The biggest limitation to our findings was the sample size for our comparison. With a small number of researchers and a limited amount of time, we were only able to analyze five websites. Of those websites, two were direct competitors, two were parallel comparators, and one was an indirect competitor. With more time and resources we would ideally be able to analyze some partial competitors, (i.e. those that offer some, but not all of the same features as the ECRC) and some analogous systems (systems that are completely different from the ECRC but may provide suggestions as to how to provide job search and recruiting functions more efficiently). We would also get the opportunity to do more research into other websites that both students and employers find as “competitive” offerings to the ECRC, whether those are outside job search websites (Monster or Indeed) or other networking websites. Another possible bias in our findings is based on the key dimensions we chose for comparison. These dimensions were based on our previous research from our interviews and surveys. However, both previous phases of research also had their own limitations and biases. The interviews and surveys did not have as many responses as we anticipated. Therefore, the dimensions selected for analysis may not be as all encompassing as desired for this comparative analysis. With more time and larger response rates, we could likely get an even clearer picture of what features on the ECRC are most important to users and, therefore, have a better idea of what features to focus on with similar websites. Regardless of these limitations, our comparative analysis provided us with a solid foundation to assert our findings and recommendations. With additional time and resources, these findings could be elaborated on so as to help the ECRC get a more complete picture of the job search and recruiting environment in which their website exists.

SI 622 GROUP 5 16

Conclusion In this report, we have presented our key findings learned through our research of other websites that are direct, indirect, and parallel in comparison to the functionalities of the ECRC’s website. Using these external sites as benchmarks, we are better able to evaluate the context, display and usability of the ECRC’s website and accessibility of their resources. We believe that the direct and parallel comparisons of similar websites will also help us in our recommendations to increase the visibility of the ECRC’s resources and services, as well as determine how best to structure the information they provide to the primary users of their website.

SI 622 GROUP 5 17

References Cooper, A., Reimann, R., and Cronin, D. (2007). About Face 3: the essentials of interaction design. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing, Inc. Goodman, E., Kuniavsky, M., and Moed, A. (2012). Observing the User Experience, Second Edition: A Practitioner's Guide to User Research. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. Schoenebeck, S. (2014). Lecture on Comparative Analysis [PowerPoint slides].

SI 622 GROUP 5 18

Appendix A: Comparative Analysis Matrix

ECRC Website Comparative Analysis Matrix *Ratings: 1=poor/non---existence; 2=exists but could be improved; 3=decent; 4=great; 5=excellent/top notch

Website

ECRC

Ross School of Business Student Career Services

UM Career Center

LinkedIn

UC Berkeley Career Center

University of Rochester Career Center

Website Organization Navigation 2 2 4 4 3 4 Managing redundancy 1 5 4 4 5 4 Information is categorized 4 4 5 4 5 5 Efficient use of text 3 3 4 5 3 4 Aesthetics Images 3 3 5 4 3 4 Colors 4 5 5 4 3 4 Organization 2 2 4 3 5 4 Font legibility 3 5 4 4 3 3 Target Population Clear differentiation of target population sections

5

5

4

3

4

5

Information and design fits the needs of the job searcher

3

3

5

4

4

5

Information and design fits the needs of the employer

4

5

5

3

4

3

Information and design fits the needs of miscellaneous users

3

1

4

2

4

4

Functionality Events calendar 2 2 3 2 5 4 Request an appointment 2 3 4 1 3 2 Relevant search results 1 2 5 5 4 4 Resume & cover letter samples

3

1

4

2

3

3

Interview guides 2 1 5 2 4 4 Networking resources 2 1 4 5 4 4 Personal communication (one---on---one or at least the feeling of it)

2

1

5

4

4

3

Frequently asked questions 1 5 4 3 3 2

SI 622 GROUP 5 19

Appendix B: Individual Notes from Comparative Analysis

ECRC Website

Dimension Rating Notes Website Organization Navigation

2

There are two navigation bars on the website which are partially identical to each other. This can be quite confusing. The hierarchy of the navigation is not clear (e.g. some items on the main horizontal navbar are also included in the dropdown list for other categories in the horizontal navbar).

Managing redundancy

1

The website has a lot of redundancy. There are two navigation bars with much of the same information. Many links are provided multiple times on the same website or even a single page, like the ENGenius.Jobs.

Information is categorized

4

The website clearly categorizes its contents by user groups.

Efficient use of text

3

Text on each page is informative but there are many long paragraphs. This can make text on each page look overwhelming.

Aesthetics Images

3 The quality of photos used is high, but the same image of the director on each page can be intimidating.

Colors

4 The website has a representative

and distinctive color scheme. Organization

2

The space of the website is not efficiently planned. The pictures of Corporate partners’ logos take up the majority of each landing page. As a result, other important information cannot be seen at first sight.

Font legibility

3

In general the fonts used are legible and well---sized. Bold fonts are used to emphasize specific sections. White space is used efficiently. However,

SI 622 GROUP 5 20

the font used in the box of ECRC Events on the left and ECRC location on the right is very thick and therefore can be difficult to read.

Target Population Clear differentiation of target population sections

5

The website clearly separates its sections by user groups: students/alumni, employers and faculty/staff.


3

There are a lot of great resources for job---searching students and alumni, but the design of the website makes it difficult to find this information.


4 Information on the website is helpful

and informative for employers. Information and design fits the needs of miscellaneous users

3

The website also provides information for faculty and staff but not a lot. The information is primarily about reference letters.

Functionality Events calendar

2

The events calendars are a convenient way for users to look into upcoming events. However, when users switch to “week view” from the default “month view”, the Calendar shows events for the whole university, not just the ECRC. This can be confusing. Additionally, the calendar is embedded in the engineering website so users can’t go back to the ECRC website unless they hit the “back” button on their browser.

Request an appointment

2

In the navigation bar there’s no hyperlink for making an appointment with ECRC. In order to make an appointment, users need to login to ENGenius.Jobs or call/stop---by/email the ECRC office.

SI 622 GROUP 5 21

Relevant search results

1

The website provides a search box but the results are not limited to ECRC website. This means there is often a lot of irrelevant information.

This could overwhelm users. Resume & cover letter samples

3

Resources are provided but are not easy to find. Additionally, they are primarily provided as Word documents that automatically download when the user selects the hyperlink.

Interview guides

2 Interview guides are provided in the Career Manual, which are difficult to locate from the website.

Networking resources

2 A guide is provided in the Career Manual but is difficult to locate from the website.

Personal communication (one---on---one or at least the feeling of it)

2

The website provides contact information of staff. Users can use this to make appointments with ECRC. However it doesn’t indicate whether the user can get one---on---one help or not. Student can’t reach out directly to alumni or employers except via ENGenius.Jobs.

Frequently asked questions

1 The website does not have a FAQ

section.

Ross School of Business – Student Career Services

Dimension Rating Notes Website Organization

Navigation

2

The student and recruiter sections are completely separate on the website, which impacts ease of navigation between the two cites. Additionally, the breadcrumbs are inconsistent throughout each page. For example, in the student section, there are no breadcrumbs for the "Employment Data" section. Once a student clicks on that option they need to click the back button to go back to the home page.

SI 622 GROUP 5 22

Managing redundancy

5

Both the student and recruiter page are very minimalistic. Everything that is included on each page is only linked to once, with the exception of contact data --- which is mentioned

only a couple of times. Information is categorized

4

The use of a wiki to organize important job---search resources means all additional resources are well categorized.


3

The majority of the pages are very minimalistic and include very little text --- mostly white space. Unfortunately, the wiki has an excess of text and no images, thus bringing down the rating for efficient use of text.

Aesthetics Images

3 Minimal use of images means that each image stands out but also means there is a lot of white space.

Colors

5 Colors are consistent and fit well with the University of Michigan brand.

Organization

3

The minimal design means the site looks clean and well---organized. Unfortunately, this minimalistic design also means it is not easy to find everything.

Font legibility 5 Very easy to read. Target Population

Clear differentiation of target population sections

5

Two entirely separate pages: one for recruiters, one for students --- relevant information for each only listed on their specific site.

SI 622 GROUP 5 23


3

Ross seems to want to encourage students to reach out to the office for information as there is very little on the website beyond Employment Data, contact information and a link to iMpact (their job board). This means that the most important information is on the website, but not much else.


5

The recruiter site has a lot more information than the student page, including instructions for posting a position, accessing resumes, creating an event, recruiting calendar, and

class profiles/employment data. Information and design fits the needs of miscellaneous users

1

It seems as though the sites for recruiters and students are specifically for those targets. I cannot see any information on those sites that would be of interest to others, besides the possibility that new students might be interested in employment data.


2

An events calendar is listed on the recruiter site but not the students site; it is possible one is included in iMpact (their job board site) but we don't have access.


3

Plenty of links directing students and employers how to contact the Ross staff in order to set up appointments but no link to directly set up an appointment on the website; possible this is included in iMpact (their job board site) but we don't have access.


3 Search results come via Google but are focused on results from Ross first.

Resume & cover letter samples

1 Could not find any samples; possibly included in iMpact (their job board site) but we don't have access.

SI 622 GROUP 5 24

Interview guides

1 Could not find any guides; possibly included in iMpact (their job board site) but we don't have access.


1

Could not find networking resources; possibly included in iMpact (their job board site) but we don't have access.


1 Could not find anything; possibly included in iMpact (their job board site) but we don't have access.


4 Clearly labeled on student section.

Nothing for recruiters.

UM Career Center

Dimension Rating Notes

Website Organization Navigation

4

Only one navbar on the left side. Navigation flow of the site is clean and easy to follow; categories are put on the top rather than merging them in the navigation menu.

Managing redundancy

4

In general the website has very little information redundancy. Only in specific sections a list of links is placed both on the right side and at the bottom.


5

The website has clear categories for the various types of resources it has.

Efficient use of text 4 Text is clean and well structured. Aesthetics

Images

5 Images are interesting and are

appealing to users. Colors

5 The website has a well---designed

color scheme. Organization

4 The website has a clean “F” layout (i.e. horizontal bar, side bar and contents).

Font legibility

4

White space is efficiently used. In general the fonts has a high readability. The font of top bar is a little bit too small.

Target Population

SI 622 GROUP 5 25


4

The website categorizes its users into students, employers, alumni and parents. Can be a little confused that the parents and alumni sections are under the student section.


5

Content of the website are great resources for students who are looking for career development information. The design of the website well facilitates the search of career---related information.


5 Content of the website are helpful

and informative for employers. Information and design fits the needs of miscellaneous users

4 The website also provides useful

information for parents and alumni. Functionality

Events calendar 3 Events are presented in a long list. Request an appointment

4 It’s on the second tab of the navbar and contact information is easy to find.


5 Only provides search results related

to UM Career Center. Resume & cover letter samples

4

Great resources are provided. But can have more.

Interview guides

5 Very specific guides provided in

multiple forms, e.g. videos. Networking resources

4 Specific guides are provided for

developing networking. Personal communication (one---on---one or at least the feeling of it)

5 The website provides contact information of staff and users can make appointments with advisors.


4 Doesn't have FAQs for the whole site but has some specific ones under some topics

LinkedIn

Dimension Rating Notes Website Organization

SI 622 GROUP 5 26

Navigation

4

The website has a very simple and easy to follow navigation structure. Moreover the presence of not many drop down items makes it easy to navigate the website.

Managing redundancy

4

LinkedIn has managed redundancy very well. The website does provide some redundant information, however that is too less that it can be ignored.


4

LinkedIn has excellent categorization of information, which makes it easier to look for the stuff. The categorization helps in keeping the menu navigation concise.


5 LinkedIn has more use of images to display the important information. Like in the job section.

Aesthetics Images

4

Excellent use of images to portray important information.

Colors

4 Minimalistic use of colors to keep the

look and feel simple and clean. Organization

3

The organization is well done in some areas of the website and in some areas the information seems too cluttered and hard to read.

Font legibility

4

Nice use of font and size to emphasize data and easy to read.


3

LinkedIn is more directed towards the people who are trying to search for jobs or grow their professional networks, hence there is no clear demarcation in population.


4

LinkedIn is primarily meant for job searchers and hence most of the information is catered towards job searchers.


3 Does offer some level of support for employers trying to hire people for jobs.

SI 622 GROUP 5 27


2

N/A


2

No events calendar present. However, does have a way of alerting users of different important things that might be happening.

Request an appointment 1 N/A Relevant search results

5 Search is highly specialized and performs exceptionally well in providing results to the user.


2 Not any samples, however articles on how to write resumes and cover letters do exist.

Interview guides

2 Not any guides, however articles pertaining to the subject do exists and available to the user to read.


5 High specialized way of allowing people to network through connecting them, messages, etc.

Personal communication (one---on---one or at least the feeling

4 Messages in the LinkedIn system

allow users to personally

of it) communicate with other people on the system.


3

No FAQ section. However, help section tells people on some of the recent questions that have been searched for.

UCBerkeley Career Center

Dimension Rating Notes Website Organization Navigation

3

The site is very well organized, and easy to navigate. You can quickly find what you are looking for because everything is organized well.

Managing redundancy

5 There is no redundancy and overlap is only as appropriate needed. To get from one page to the other.

SI 622 GROUP 5 28


5

The information is categorized under each heading on the navigation bar. The pages are mostly text and can be a bit dense on some pages.


3 The pages are mostly text and can be a bit dense on some pages like the Career Destination Survey page.

Aesthetics Images

3 Very few if any images and the website has a very sterile generic look.

Colors

3 The website has a very sterile generic appearance because not many colors are used.

Organization

5

All the information is extremely organized and it's easy to find anything you need because it is well categorized.

Font legibility

3 The font is very clear and legible

despite the site being mostly text. Target Population


4

UC Berkeley does a great job of separating the employer and student sections and having the relevant information on each page for both

groups. Information and design fits the needs of the job searcher

4 Offers a tremendous support for students in their trajectory to finding an internship or job.


4

There is no confusion about how to find resources for employers because it is contained on a site specifically tailored for them and their needs.


4

Has sections of the site designed specifically for the parents of the students and faculty and staff with relevant information.


5

There is an events calendar and it is easily accessible from the left navigation bar on both the student and employer sites.

SI 622 GROUP 5 29


4

Students can easily request an appointment from the site from the counseling feature on the navigation bar.


4 Search results are powered by Google and contained within the sites featured categories.


3

Resume and cover letter samples are available, but require a bit of searching. You can't immediate access them from the "Resume Cover Letter" link on the site.

Interview guides

4 Interview guides are accessible

through the Interview link. Networking resources

4 There is a webpage for "Networking" under Career Exploration that promotes these resources.


4

Site cleverly uses photos of graduates and interns with their contact information to promote programs as well as a possible networking opportunity


3

FAQ pages are kind of hard to find. It's listed at the bottom of the page in small type as "Questions and Answers" which is not immediately

apparent.

University of Rochester Career Center

Dimension Rating Notes Website Organization Navigation 4 Managing redundancy

4

Most information is only found in one place, however there is some redundancy in that there’s a link back to “getting started” on the bottom of several student pages.


5

Website organizes information into separate tabs for Students, Employers, Faculty/Staff, and Prospective Students/Parents.


4 Pages aren’t text heavy and still

provide adequate information. SI 622 GROUP 5 30

Aesthetics Images

4

Website makes good use of eye---catching images to display important information (such as slide---show of resources on home page).

Colors

4 Site uses a white and blue color

palette—simple but effective. Organization

4 Resources within the tabs (Students,

Employers, etc.) are easy to find. Font legibility

3

Font is easy to read, but they could make better use of font sizes/bolding to make headings more obvious.


5 Site is clearly divided into sections for Students, Employers, Faculty, and Parents/Prospective students.


5

Site provides very useful resources for students beginning a job or internship hunt, such as career/major advice, interview and networking tips, and sample cover letters.


3 Site provides information for

employers, but it’s not as robust as

SI 622 GROUP 5 31

what’s provided for students. Information and design fits the needs of miscellaneous users

4

Site provides information for Faculty as well as Parents/prospective students, although not as detailed as that for students.


4

Events are displayed as a list on the homepage so students can easily see them. Clicking the “events” link leads to a calendar view where students have to hover over dates to see the event info.


2

This link only leads to email addresses for the career counselors, not a direct link to set up an appointment online.

Relevant search results 4 Search bar leads to in---site results Resume & cover letter samples

3 Provided, but in the form of PDFs handbooks that might be difficult to read.

Interview guides

4

“Interview” section of the student tab provides a detailed list of steps for before, during, and after an interview.


5 “Networking” section provides good information to get started with events and LinkedIn.


3

Links to “Alumni Profiles” are provided with emails. Students are allowed to contact these alumni for further career advice.


2 Only available under the Parents/Prospective Students section.

SI 622 GROUP 5 32

Documents

Comparative Analysis Research Report · parallel competitors. We profiled the Ross School of Business an d the University of Michigan Career Center sites as direct competitors, and