...
Link to this page: go.osu.edu/dpaDPA-Digital-digital-content-policyContent-Policy or go.osu.edu/DPA-DCPG
Introduction
This project is an outgrowth of initial findings from the Workflow Analysis project and Digital Projects Planning, Priorities and Transparency discussions. The findings include the need for a digital content policy, priority management, process controls, consolidated project documentation and designated repository for it, and mechanisms for the transfer of knowledge resulting from staff turnover (or simply the passage of time). The initial work of this tactical sub-group will deal with the first element, digital content policy.
...
Planning for Sustainable Change: University Libraries Digital Content Policy & Governance
Link to this page/section: go.osu.edu/DPA-Prioritize-Decisions
Problem Statement
The Ohio State University Libraries currently lacks a holistic approach to the governance and management of the activities to process born digital content and to digitize existing collection content that would facilitate our commitment to sustainable access, long-term stewardship and preservation of this content for the benefit of our current and future users.
...
- 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- Dan updated the "DPA-Dig-Content-Policy-Gov-20210428.xlsx" (now superseded) by aggregating the Prioritization Factors into four areas: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.
April 22, 2021
Attendance: Sue Beck, Morag Boyd, Miriam Centeno, Tamar Chute, Nena Couch, Dan Noonan, Jenny Robb, & Gene Springs
Agenda
- Definition of Project
- Prioritization Factors
Maybe re-state Reconciling dependencies and obstacles - Dependencies/obstacles can be reconciled through digitization project.
Prioritizing list: I don’t think so. It’s so different depending on the unit. And who is requesting the work can either put it at the very top or can make it lower
- Can't have wild west
- Can't have draconian process
- Discussed w/Search Committee analogy
Rubric/Tool:
We do need a tool to guide these decisions, and a weighted rubric seems like a possibility. The responsibility for assigning scores should rest where the work would – for example, I have seen several digitization proposals where the proposer declares the metadata is good but the units responsible for that work would not have made the same assessment.
- I don’t think so. It’s so different depending on the unit. And who is requesting the work can either put it at the very top or can make it lower
- Visibility: I believe we do need a formalized process, which is not to automatically equate formalized with complex or onerous. However, most projects will require input from multiple units and make some resources unavailable to other uses, so the decision has to be collective.
- Formalized process: Probably if we want it to be equitable, but we can’t make this crazy complicated. Honestly, what will happen is everyone will avoid doing it if it’s too complicated.
...
Agenda
- Demo/discuss the new "Additional Considerations" section
- Does it make a difference about how we've made decision in the past, instead of how we should be doing it???
- Personal Prioritization Factors
- Unit Prioritization Factors
- Lists of Projects:
- What defines a project?
- Are we just talking digital?
- Another way to discuss it is as a workstream.
- Can we pilot/experiment with something with a smaller group (key stakeholder) and a small group of projects?
- Do we need a decision-making body, or is it a matter of communication?
- When does something transition from a project to ongoing work, or does it?
- How does Copyright fit within this process?
- Action Items:
- Dan to send email asking for project list, types of projects, prioritization factors
- Sub-group members to respond to email
...