Link to this page: go.osu.edu/DPA-Digital-Content-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.

As this group works towards establishing a policy framework for the University Libraries' digital content, it should be address concerns related to:

• 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?

• What is it we can do vs. what we cannot?

The secondary considerations, that may or may not need a dedicated workgroup, but are inevitably intertwined in the aforementioned considerations include:

• What drives the priority decisions?

• Who decides on the priority? (A committee once had the authority)

• What is an appropriate governance model?

• What is it we can do vs. what we cannot?

Members

• Morag Boyd

• Miriam Centeno

• Tamar Chute

• Nena Couch

• Dan Noonan, Convener

• Jenny Robb

• Gene Springs

Timeframe

Kickoff in November 2020 with a draft by the end of January 2021, with final recommendations no later than end of March 2021.

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.

Current State >>> Future State

Defining the Change

Benefits

Process

Measuring Progress

Meetings

December 13, 2021

Attendance: Sue Beck, Morag Boyd, Miriam Centeno, Tamar Chute, Nena Couch, Dan Noonan & Jenny Robb

Regrets: Gene Springs

Agenda

• Rubric discussion- walked through and discussed revised Rubric

• Action Items:

  • Dan:

    • Split out EDIA as its own category

    • Fix "Priorities and Objectives" language possibly strategic pillars and initiatives

  • All:

    • Examples/language for "future efficiencies" for digitized materials

    • Examples of "exigent circumstances" and how justified, partially justified or not justified

    • Key Accountable role

      • Is this the correct label or is there a better one?

      • Which elements actually need one?

      • Is there only one for a designated element or more?

• Next Steps:

  • Socialize with the larger DP&A

  • Finalize Rubric

  • Establish how we will roll it out and who who be part of and govern process

  • Establish how we will measure success

October 21, 2021

Attendance: Sue Beck, Morag Boyd, Miriam Centeno, Tamar Chute, Nena Couch, Dan Noonan, Jenny Robb, & Gene Springs

Agenda

• Rubric discussion

  • Using an example it was hard to answer questions. We need to have a guide as to what questions needs to be answered from the proposer  

  • The copyright risk assessment exemptions show stopper is problematic! 

  • Exigent circumstances – should the 0-3  (justified to not justified) should be reverse? Exist or nonexistent is more appropriate. 

  • Priorities and Objections of University Libraries (need clarification regarding what objectives and priorities are we talking about, is this the strategic objectives?) 

  • Impact statement for digitization when it comes to future efficiencies  

  • If a project gets rejected, what do I do with the images that have already been digitized? 

    • The Rubric is not so much about negating a project, its about prioritizing it on a sliding scale with other existing projects.

  • Impact of other projects and work conducted by one unit need to be considered earlier on from a "project" prioritization point-of-view

  • GAP: Is there a workflow for already digitized items that just need to be ingested in a preservation repository?

September 23, 2021

Attendance: Sue Beck, Morag Boyd, Miriam Centeno, Tamar Chute, Nena Couch, Dan Noonan & Jenny Robb

Regrets: Gene Springs

Guest: Beth Snapp

Agenda

• Rubric table-top exercise and discussion

  • Concerns:

    • Unable to answer rubric question based on info provided; although could maybe infer.

      • Need to have the response to the rubric questions built into an interview or intake form so the group has the information when scoring

      • Having the proposer available to answer questions but not participate might be important (answer the group's questions and then exit).

        • If project proposers try to participate it may hinder the group's ability to complete the scoring in a timely fashion

    • What does work-plan completeness mean?

      • Is there evidence of a work-plan to execute the project?

      • But don't we want to answer the "project worthiness" question before creating a full-fledged plan?

    • There are many unknowns in calibrating terminology (e.g. what is a large, medium and small project?); but could happen over time.

    • Is copyright misplaced? Maybe a showstopper?

      • The current three exceptions are:

        • public domain;

        • not public domain, but we've been granted permission 

        • we own rights

      • Copyright should not be an impediment to Preservation! May be an obstacle to Access, but not Preservation.

    • Is this right tool?

    • Should it just be self scored and/or collectively discussed and scored together

    • The tool might be best deployed after project is submitted, which has more detailed info.

    • If the object are already digitized or to be digitized for another reason, how do we account for that; do we need another question?

      • This likely comes in the OPPORTUNITY section under "Does this work lead to future efficiencies?" or "Critical mass"

    • What is "Requestor's Need"?

      • Why are patrons a factor? If the request raises itself to a project as opposed to a one-off or would have to actively engage Preservation and Digitization and/or Metadata Initiatives.

      • Does this section need to be just a rating with more nuanced understanding of who requestor is?

        • There has already been a discussed hierarchy for prioritization that we are trying to reflect. If it is more nuanced and say it is a donor request, but not critical, then maybe score it lower and explain in the Notes.

      • It appears that we should switch to "Nature of Requester's Need" instead of who the requester is! 

    • Do we actually need the "Core Service" question? It was expressed previously as a prioritization factor, but if there is collective agreement that it is not an actual issue to be scored, it could be removed.

      • Since collective agreement was provided, this factor will be removed.

    • Is there a way to combine the Rubric with the project proposal for a more seamless workflow; possibly with a conversation with the proposer?

    • What are we trying to address with Readiness? What is the basis of the scoring point-of-view?

      • We may need to provide more explanation here (Readiness focuses on existing details not what is desired or what the outcome should be)

• Next steps: We'll need at least another meeting and continue discussions virtually until then.

August 24, 2021

Attendance: Sue Beck, Morag Boyd, Miriam Centeno, Tamar Chute, Nena Couch, Dan Noonan, Jenny Robb, & Gene Springs

Agenda

• MS Teams/OneDrive Migration

• Rubric review

• Table-top exercise planning

• Action Items:

  • Dan to schedule next meeting

  • Exercise Prep":

    • Put project detail sin "Rubric" folder in Teams/OneDrive

    • Dan to create individualized "rubric tools"

    • Everyone: Complete rubric

July 8, 2021

Attendance: Sue Beck, Morag Boyd, Miriam Centeno, Tamar Chute, Nena Couch, Dan Noonan, Jenny Robb, & Gene Springs

Agenda

• Develop test/pilot rubric and table-top exercise

  • Each group come up w/a couple projects

  • What does a proposal look like?

    • What level of "projects" would come to this "group"?

    • How does "routine" work factor in?

    • What is "routine" work?

    • Is the digitization proposal form good enough?

    • Do we tweak it?

    • Do we have turn our factors into a checklist?

    • Let's not make it arduous?

    • eg: CWRU https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KTGdAfYKWX6x6Hae_F4DonbEdqtF7o4Hkx56wBrA2K4/edit#gid=1266435649

  • Do we use just a numeric system?

  • It could be like "candidate" ranking? Initial score with discussion

  • May be composite scoring and not exactly granular – adding "human" factor

  • Possibly an ongoing regular "meeting of the minds"

  • Think about it in terms of projects, not daily work

  • Regardless there must be a certain % of time that i set aside to do regular work

  • Think about work in a 1/4ly fashion?

  • How do we account for disruptions and re-prioritizing work?

  • 60 project / 30 ongoing / 10 admin weekly splits (what do these represent???)

  • Regular discussion schedules valuable; how does new work impact priority of stuff already in the pipeline? Especially from disparate groups

  • Need to keep core group small and manageable; invite others ad hoc as needed

  • Start w/possibly monthly meetings and other communication channels

  • Representative sample of projects:

• Action Items

  • Draft Rubric - Dan & Sue

  • Sample Projects -- Heads

May 18, 2021

Attendance: Sue Beck, Morag Boyd, Miriam Centeno, Tamar Chute, Nena Couch, Dan Noonan, Jenny Robb, & Gene Springs

Agenda

• 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

  • 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?

  • 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.

• We intended to return to Change Management Process Matrix, but ran out of time.