...
- Recap of our categorizing Prioritization Factors
- Dan updated the "DPA-Dig-Content-Policy-Gov-20210428.xlsx" (now superseded) by aggregating the Prioritization Factors into four areas:
- Alignment
- Opportunity
- Readiness
- Who is requesting the work?
- (Dan updated spreadsheet and Prioritization Factors 2021.06.14)
- It was noted that this is the opportunity for us to lobby for our needs.
- Type of work:
- There is a difference between the work we are required to do, and the work that we can prioritize through the selection and prioritization process.
- We need to effectively articulate and identify our Core Services, i.e. work we cannot say “NO” to; vs. the work we want to do.
- Add "Core Services" to the "Alignment" Category for prioritization.
- Further, what are our core competency for things that we can do in house, vs. what we should outsource using vendors?
- What are the funding considerations for outsourcing work?
- IT has a service list, and we have been developing potential service list for digital scholarship; we should create on as it relates to preservation, digitization, and distinctive collections
- We need to effectively articulate and identify our Core Services, i.e. work we cannot say “NO” to; vs. the work we want to do.
- There is a difference between the work we are required to do, and the work that we can prioritize through the selection and prioritization process.
- Constraints:
- We need to optimize at the constraint(s) for the whole of the process/system, not just within the silos.
- For the most part, staffing deficits are currently not on the table for consideration; we will have to find other ways to optimize the process(es)
- Volume of work:
- If the scope of service exceeds the capacity, we have to adjust the scope of it if we are going to provide it; one group cannot make a commitment of anther's services. We have to develop a collective/consensus means of prioritizing and committing to work.
- We need to learn to balance and sequence work most effectively, rather than saying "we cannot provide a service." We need to agree that a "no" is for now, not necessarily forever.
- However, how long should digital objects/assets languish on the K-drive, before they can be ingested?
- Is it just a matter of prioritizing?
- Or, does the process need to be re-engineered for multiple, vetted points of ingest?
- If the scope of service exceeds the capacity, we have to adjust the scope of it if we are going to provide it; one group cannot make a commitment of anther's services. We have to develop a collective/consensus means of prioritizing and committing to work.
- We agree that access should be determined based on Rights, however it should not to halt the preservation process because of the permissions/rights issue.
- Why should clear copyright status be a stumbling block for ingest into the DC?
- Do we design a multi-stage process to get assets preserved, and then address access?
- Can we create a scorable rubric to accommodate these factors?
- It was suggested we give it a trial run via a table-top exercise.
- Will need a team to design rubric and exercise.
- Dan updated the "DPA-Dig-Content-Policy-Gov-20210428.xlsx" (now superseded) by aggregating the Prioritization Factors into four areas:
- We intended to return to Change Management Process Matrix, but ran out of time.
...