Link to this page: go.osu.edu/DPA-Parking-Lot

The "Parking Lot" below began as a traditional parking lot to document, as we conduct our meetings and projects, topics may come up that are related, but may not currently be in scope. It was intended to allow us to put a "pin in it" and then reviewing it on a regular basis to determine when and if it will enter a work queue. Well it morphed into an ares where we have been documenting gaps identified in our SIPOC/RACI/BW activities.

Parking Lot/Gaps

Date	Issue	Notes
2020.05.15	Possible gap	Items under intellectual right but when trying to get into DC they really were not!
2020.05.26	What are our missing processes?
2020.05.26	How do we "inform" project partners?
2020.05.26	Consistency of metadata templates
2020.06.01	New stakeholder	Advancement - accessioning of gifts
2020.06.02	Gap for MI team	Share csv from step 6 (QA) with project owner
2020.06.03	How do we select/specify what type of born digital content we will collect?
2020.06.03	How we select digitization? How would work change if this were different?	This seems to be a gap in our SPIOCs thus far; we start with the presumption that something has been selected. How do we capture this in a SIPOC? Who should be involved; curatorial leads, preservation & digitization, copyright?
2020.06.08	Gaps for THO Spec. Coll.	Prioritization list for digitization project proposals Approval process - used to have a committee but now it's not clear any longer
2020.06.08	Gap for Archives	Getting things into Digital Collections doesn't have a clear path
2020.06.10	Marketing as a consumer of digital content
2020.06.18	Gap for Exhibits	Go link (go.osu.edu) created for Digital Exhibits
2020.06.18	Gap for Exhibits/SCR	Linking of collections to exhibits on Special Collections Registry (SCR)
2020.06.18	Gap for Exhibits	various storage platforms for images/documents
2020.06.19	Gap for ADA	Curator's are responsible for assessing and reviewing of materials but don't always do it.
2020.06.19	Gap for ADA	No real accountable person for assessing and reviewing of materials
2020.06.19	Gap for ADA	Digital Conservation/Preservation of digitized assets
2020.06.23	Access Services roles involved with Google Books
2020.06.23	Bottleneck: detailed, perfect metadata	prevents us from creating scalable processes for ingesting and preserving born digital collections.
2020.06.24	Gap for ERMT	Local storage of purchased datasets, PDFs, etc. (now going to Box)
2020.06.24	Redesign of Research Databases
2020.06.25	BICLM requests for digitization is not formalized
2020.06.25	GAP Metadata Template and SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for digitization metadata (regardless of materials' final repository)
2020.06.30	Gap Acquisition - No documentation of resource analysis around purchase decision
2020.06.30	Acquisition use Selectors to reflect collection managers, collections strategy, course reserve, etc that can submit order requests
2020.06.30	PRS long-term stewardship of assets is ongoing
2020.07.08	Process around using K: Drive	Workflow that had K: Drive at its core and close look at how we are interacting with this storage option.
2020.07.28	It seems that individual units treat projects as internal projects rather than Libraries projects; hence, project management seems to be isolated to the unit without a holistic picture of overall workflow.	Looking to address this in the Digital Projects Planning, Priorities and Transparency project; this also goes to the notion of a lack of governance/formalized collaborative internal networks around managing stuff digital in the ULs.
2020.08.14	Gap - Metadata Initiative	Deleting records from K:drive on hold based on stakeholders' permission
2020.08.14	Gap - Metadata Initiative Gap	Saving documentation and files related to projects that are completed by stakeholders' (Currently there is no consolidation of project documentation and files)
2020.08.14	Define Digital Projects
2020.08.25	Gap - DP&A	Lack of overall priority management (who decides on the priority? what drives the priority decisions)
2020.08.25	Gap - DP&A	Decisions around stewardship/preservation of digitized content (it should be assessed every time rather than assume it's a given)
2020.08.25	Gap - DP&A	Lack of digital content policy (clarify the selection criteria for long-term preservation and stewardship versus transactional work that need to be discarded)
2020.08.25	Gap - DP&A	Building controls (essential for a sustainable system)
2020.09.22	Gap - DP&A	Lack of overarching selection criteria - UL does not have a selection criteria for materials that are digitized in order to decide on whether long-term preservation and stewardship is required or the digital content (regardless of the standards used to digitize them) should be discarded.
2020.10.06	GAP - Access Services	Loss of transfer of knowledge resulting from staff turnover at Library Tech Center.
2020.10.06	Access Services	Transfers to OhioLINK ETD are on hold/stopped. Require cataloging for new digitized format & acquiring permission from Graduate School which should happen at Bibliographic Initiative group (is this happening?)
	Below not included in 2020.10.15 Analysis
2020.10.22	Gap - Access Services	Large item scanning equipment availability, ease of use Digitization and Preservation team has a roller scanner Byrd Polar Archives use the scanner at Polar for their scanning needs
2020.10.22	Gap - Access Services	No policy regarding copyright of theses and dissertations being digitized. If copyright risks exist the a page is inserted in the scans and the process is stopped. Further requests or need for preservation would require re-work/repeat of the process
2020.10.22	Gap - Access Services	Digital surrogates deposited in K Drive remain on this temporary storage indefinitely. Controls for what happens to these files don't exist or are unclear! What happens in Bibliographic Initiative unit currently regarding this process? The process used to remove files after upload to ETD center was confirmed but with this project being on hold/stopped what is the plan for these files?
2020.10.28	Gap - Accessibility	Generating accessible materials through digitization: Patron request for an accessible version
2020.10.28	Gap - Content Criteria	Who makes decisions about what should and shouldn't be a complex object. What guidance could be provided for decision-making?
2020.10.29	Gap - Content Criteria	When digitizing who's decision is it as to whether or not digitize the verso if it does contain information?
2020.11.16	Tombstone Handle vs. Delete in DC (and other pertinent systems)
2021.02.21	Gap - BICLM Project Digitization	Placing scanned items in K-drive regardless of future decisions on whether these assets would get consumed into DC. They should be associated with SPEC number. By not putting digitized assets in K-drive, we are not preserving them. Items on J or H drives are not preserved and have no path to preservation. No longer have ability to ingest assets directly into DC!
2021.02.24	Gap - Exhibits	Social media posts are not in consultation with Marketing & Communications. So units without social media accounts don't have the ability to market their exhibits in the same way!
2021.02.25	Gap - Digital Content Policy/Governance Sub-group	When and how do we communicate when a priority has dropped? Dropped priority for one team/group/unit is not a dropped for another team/group/unit. Within silos, things may appear as handled/accounted for, however when looking at the entire organization as a system, they are not handled/accounted for. Lack of System thinking/doing and visibility by everyone.
2021.02.25	Gap - Copyright Services	Copyright Services Librarian position was removed although an approved position. How do we account for the role's responsibilities in the current workflows?
2021.03.02	Gap - BICLM Born Digital Accessions	BICLM doesn't really do this process at all (only accession of Devices/Carriers) Staff does not document anything about the hard/external drive or its content GAP remediation - Digital Preservation Librarian provide a Checklist to Special Collections for initial steps to accession digital files/collections
2021.03.03	What is "Good Enough"?	With lack of personnel bandwidth, limited technological bandwidth, and limited fiscal resources, what can we do that is "good enough" to maximize our output?
2021.03.12	Gap - Digital Content Policy/Governance Sub-group	Lack of insight into other departments' priorities. When you receive a new project/request, how do you determine its priority compared to day to day work or projects that you were already working (your existing top priorities)?
2021.03.15	Gap - Thompson Special Collections	A/V digitization process is non-existence with elimination of A/V coordinator's position What happens to the projects that were in the pipeline, but were stalled during process changes?
2021.03.16	Gap - BICLM Born Digital Accessions	No master list of Physical devices that contain digital files! A position that will do what Tressa did for A/V, for all the media in our collections. Workflows show extremely Process/Compliance heavy! Too many steps, too much red-tape, and with each new group, additional steps and requirements have been created/added to the existing processes. Processing Analog vs Digital... when would the balance tip towards the long neglected digital content? Processing of analog materials (metadata and resources that are dedicated to them) are still the main focus of the organization while there is an overwhelming need to address the shift towards intake and acquisition of digital content and the resources that need to be re-allocated to these digital materials/assets.
2021.03.22	Gap - AD&A	The inventory/description of digital files in the Box are not shared by the departments that need to process these. example: AD&A have the files in the Box, but MI doesn't know these files exist
2021.03.22	Gap - Thompson Special Collections	Most projects are on ad-hoc basis Decision regarding in-house at LTC or out-sourced by vendor is not yet established. Hope is that Curators would know if their materials are going to be processed in-house or out-sourced by vendor Accountable individual does not always have the authority to ensure the completion of the work
2021.03.25	Gap - Digital Content Policy/Governance Sub-group	What should happen when a process can't move forward without an individual's involvement but that person is not available or don't have bandwidth for the new work?
2021.05.18	Gap - Core Competencies	An articulation of what the University Libraries core competencies are vs. what we should be vending/outsourcing

Gaps Analysis as of 2020.10.15

We have collectively already identified approximately forty (40) issues, of varying sizes and overlap with a few of the minor gaps being addressed and resolved. We found the issues and gaps could be aggregated in one or more of the following four general categories (details can be found in DP&A-Parking-Lot-Themes-20201015.xlsx in our BuckeyeBox Folder):

Process (27)
Collection/Preservation Strategy (7)
Selection/Prioritization Criteria/Strategy (6)
Technical (6)

It is interestingly clear that these are not large technological concerns, but opportunities for process improvement, along with better articulation of and alignment with organizational strategy.

A key observation was made during a brainstorming session for digital projects planning, priorities and transparency by Beth, resonated with many of us:

“It seems that individual units treat projects as internal projects rather than Libraries projects; hence, project management seems to be isolated to the unit without a holistic picture of overall workflow.”

This manifests itself among a variety of the identified gaps:

Lack of digital content policy:

Clarify the selection criteria for long-term preservation and stewardship versus transactional work that need to be discarded
Is it in alignment with existing collection strategies?
Is it in alignment with organizational goals/strategies?
Investigate peer institution decision-making criteria?

Lack of overall priority management:

What drives the priority decisions?
Who decides on the priority? (A committee once had the authority)
What is an appropriate governance model?

Lack of process controls (essential for a sustainable system)

Develop rubric for life-cycle preservation decision-making
Develop SOP for patron requests

Lack of consolidated project documentation and designated repository for it
Loss of transfer of knowledge resulting from staff turnover.

The DP&A's next steps, based upon this analysis is to:

Identify what are our deepest priorities to set up task groups around; i.e. what are the one or two things over winter to get action going on?
Approach this activity in a mode of incremental or iterative change. It doesn’t have to be perfect out-of-the-box.
Who should be invited to the task group(s)?
What would a timeline for a first iteration look like?
What can be an exemplar?