Institutional Repositories : International Digital Library Perspectives : Institutional Repositories 9781846634550, 9781846634543

Citation preview

oclc cover (i).qxd

23/05/2007

11:13

Page 1

ISSN 1065-075X

Volume 23 Number 2 2007

OCLC Systems & Services International digital library perspectives Institutional repositories

www.emeraldinsight.com

OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives

ISSN 1065-075X Volume 23 Number 2 2007

Institutional repositories Access this journal online ______________________________

111

Editorial advisory board ________________________________

112

ON THE DUBLIN CORE FRONT ERMS implementation: navigating the wilderness Norm Medeiros ________________________________________________

113

Herding cats: designing DigitalCommons @ The Texas Medical Center, a multi-institutional repository Leah Krevit and Linda Crays_____________________________________

116

SHERPA-LEAP: a consortial model for the creation and support of academic institutional repositories Martin Moyle, Rebecca Stockley and Suzanne Tonkin _________________

125

EPrints makes its mark Nigel Stanger and Graham McGregor______________________________

133

Creating an institutional repository at a challenged institution John C. Kelly __________________________________________________

Access this journal electronically The current and past volumes of this journal are available at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1065-075X.htm You can also search more than 150 additional Emerald journals in Emerald Management Xtra (www.emeraldinsight.com) See page following contents for full details of what your access includes.

142

CONTENTS

CONTENTS continued

Challenges and lessons learned: moving from image database to institutional repository Mary E. Piorun, Lisa A. Palmer and Jim Comes _____________________

148

ALADIN Research Commons: a consortial institutional repository Bruce Hulse, Joan F. Cheverie and Claire T. Dygert___________________

158

Developing an institutional repository: Cranfield QUEprints – a case study Simon J. Bevan ________________________________________________

170

The institutional repository at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln: its first year of operations Paul Royster __________________________________________________

183

A multifaceted approach to promote a university repository: the University of Kansas’ experience Holly Mercer, Brian Rosenblum and Ada Emmett ____________________

190

PEPIA: a Norwegian collaborative effort for institutional repositories Sverre Magnus Elvenes Joki ______________________________________

204

The RepoMMan project: automating workflow and metadata for an institutional repository Richard Green, Ian Dolphin, Chris Awre and Robert Sherratt___________

210

Expanding roles for the institutional repository Marie Wise, Lisa Spiro, Geneva Henry and Sidney Byrd_______________

216

www.emeraldinsight.com/oclc.htm As a subscriber to this journal, you can benefit from instant, electronic access to this title via Emerald Management Xtra. Your access includes a variety of features that increase the value of your journal subscription.

Structured abstracts Emerald structured abstracts provide consistent, clear and informative summaries of the content of the articles, allowing faster evaluation of papers.

How to access this journal electronically

Additional complimentary services available

To benefit from electronic access to this journal, please contact [email protected] A set of login details will then be provided to you. Should you wish to access via IP, please provide these details in your e-mail. Once registration is completed, your institution will have instant access to all articles through the journal’s Table of Contents page at www.emeraldinsight.com/1065-075X.htm More information about the journal is also available at www.emeraldinsight.com/ oclc.htm

Your access includes a variety of features that add to the functionality and value of your journal subscription:

Our liberal institution-wide licence allows everyone within your institution to access your journal electronically, making your subscription more cost-effective. Our web site has been designed to provide you with a comprehensive, simple system that needs only minimum administration. Access is available via IP authentication or username and password.

E-mail alert services These services allow you to be kept up to date with the latest additions to the journal via e-mail, as soon as new material enters the database. Further information about the services available can be found at www.emeraldinsight.com/alerts

Emerald online training services Visit www.emeraldinsight.com/training and take an Emerald online tour to help you get the most from your subscription.

Key features of Emerald electronic journals Automatic permission to make up to 25 copies of individual articles This facility can be used for training purposes, course notes, seminars etc. This only applies to articles of which Emerald owns copyright. For further details visit www.emeraldinsight.com/ copyright Online publishing and archiving As well as current volumes of the journal, you can also gain access to past volumes on the internet via Emerald Management Xtra. You can browse or search these databases for relevant articles. Key readings This feature provides abstracts of related articles chosen by the journal editor, selected to provide readers with current awareness of interesting articles from other publications in the field. Non-article content Material in our journals such as product information, industry trends, company news, conferences, etc. is available online and can be accessed by users. Reference linking Direct links from the journal article references to abstracts of the most influential articles cited. Where possible, this link is to the full text of the article. E-mail an article Allows users to e-mail links to relevant and interesting articles to another computer for later use, reference or printing purposes.

Xtra resources and collections When you register your journal subscription online, you will gain access to Xtra resources for Librarians, Faculty, Authors, Researchers, Deans and Managers. In addition you can access Emerald Collections, which include case studies, book reviews, guru interviews and literature reviews.

Emerald Research Connections An online meeting place for the research community where researchers present their own work and interests and seek other researchers for future projects. Register yourself or search our database of researchers at www.emeraldinsight.com/ connections

Choice of access Electronic access to this journal is available via a number of channels. Our web site www.emeraldinsight.com is the recommended means of electronic access, as it provides fully searchable and value added access to the complete content of the journal. However, you can also access and search the article content of this journal through the following journal delivery services: EBSCOHost Electronic Journals Service ejournals.ebsco.com Informatics J-Gate www.j-gate.informindia.co.in Ingenta www.ingenta.com Minerva Electronic Online Services www.minerva.at OCLC FirstSearch www.oclc.org/firstsearch SilverLinker www.ovid.com SwetsWise www.swetswise.com

Emerald Customer Support For customer support and technical help contact: E-mail [email protected] Web www.emeraldinsight.com/customercharter Tel +44 (0) 1274 785278 Fax +44 (0) 1274 785201

OCLC 23,2

112

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Dr Toby Burrows Principal Librarian, Scholars’ Centre, University of Western Australia Library, Crawley, Australia

Laila Miletic-Vejzovic Head, Manuscripts, Archives & Special Collections, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

Robert S. Cox Head of Manuscripts, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Christa Mueller Librarian, Austrian National Library, Vienna, Austria

Karen Davis Head, Monograph Cataloging Unit, Liaison Librarian, William Russell Pullen Library, Atlanta, GA, USA

Jennifer Rowley Lecturer, School for Business and Regional Development, University of Wales, Bangor, UK

Christine DeZelar-Tiedman Special Collections/Archives Technical Services Librarian, Wilson Library, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA Eugene C. Fieg Jr Cataloger, Claremont School of Theology, Claremont, CA, USA Lifeng Han Tsinghua University Library, Beijing, China Norm Medeiros Coordinator, Bibliographic and Digital Services, Haverford College, Haverford, PA, USA Paul Angelo Mercieca Lecturer, Information Management & Digital Publishing, RMIT Business School, Melbourne, Australia

OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives Vol. 23 No. 2, 2007 p. 112 # Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1065-075X

Suellen Stringer-Hye Systems Librarian, Jean and Alexander Heard Library, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA Lynn C. Hattendorf Westney Associate Professor, The University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Dr Judith Wusteman Department of Library and Information Studies, University College Dublin, Ireland Sha Li Zhang Associate Professor & Head of Technical Services, Wichita State University Libraries, Wichita, KS, USA

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1065-075X.htm

ON THE DUBLIN CORE FRONT

ERMS implementation: navigating the wilderness Norm Medeiros

ERMS implementation

113

Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania, USA Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe important considerations for commercial ERMS implementers. Design/methodology/approach – The paper outlines six areas that are critical to successful ERMS implementation. Findings – The paper finds that, although each of the six areas is important to consider, prior to ERMS implementation, staffing and workflows require the most forethought. Originality/value – Early-stage ERMS implementers, and those preparing for implementation, should find value in the suggestions described within the paper. Keywords Resource management, Library systems, Data structures Paper type Research paper

Tis easy to see, hard to foresee (Benjamin Franklin).

Electronic resource management is the area in which I have had to focus my attention the past several years. It has been the cause of numerous headaches and other physical ailments. The mental consequences of this work have yet to be diagnosed, but they too I am sure will prove chronic. Late last year, I was invited to talk to a group of librarians who were preparing to implement electronic resource management systems (ERMS). Having been down that bumpy road a couple of years earlier, the speaking invitation provided an opportunity to reflect on the challenges my colleagues and I endured as we migrated from a locally-developed ERMS to a commercial product. Given the hotness of this topic, I think there is value in recounting these considerations. Becoming familiar with the ERMI specification The report of the Digital Library Federation (DLF) Electronic Resource Management Initiative (ERMI) is masterful. Rich and visionary, it accommodates an impressive array of functionality and data. Since commercial e-resource system vendors have used the ERMI specification as a roadmap on which to model their systems, it is important for libraries implementing ERMS to understand the ERMI framework. This understanding should include the functional requirements – Appendix 1 of the report – that describe what an ERMS ought to do. Equally important is the data structure – Appendix 5 of the report – which defines the entities and their associated elements. A modest understanding of these concepts facilitates communication with ERMS vendors. Importing data from existing systems/spreadsheets The value of understanding the ERMI data structure manifests during the process of migrating data into the ERMS. Administrative metadata within a container such as a

OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives Vol. 23 No. 2, 2007 pp. 113-115 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1065-075X DOI 10.1108/10650750710748405

OCLC 23,2

114

locally-developed ERMS or a spreadsheet can be mapped to the ERMI data structure. This exercise will result in exact matches – one-to-one element correspondence with the ERMI data structure; partial matches – where a single element used locally is more discretely defined within the ERMI specification, or vice versa; and failed matches, where a local field has no ERMI equivalent. Working with your vendor to determine how and where to move elements from the latter two categories will minimize manual processing following the load. Assigning values Several dozen ERMI fields are defined to use value lists. Examples include resource type, license status, and pricing model. The ERMI report points to pre-existing value lists in some cases; in others, it provides recommended values. Nevertheless, it is useful to develop institution-specific values ahead of implementation if possible. In working through this tedious task, you will ensure that data values are standard, as well as results and reports generated from these values. It would be beneficial for the e-resource community to share library-derived value lists in order to assist those currently in the throes of ERMS implementation. Staffing and workflows Understanding the functional and data needs of e-resource management activities, and who will do the work, are major components of ERMS implementation, but also areas in which it is difficult to feel confident. It may be worthwhile to inventory current practices, as a way of identifying areas that can be improved through change, be that centralization or elimination of unnecessary steps. It is also important to determine whether e-resources will move through a dedicated e-only workflow, or be handled by the same set of staff that handles materials in traditional formats. Individual library circumstances will likely dictate the better approach, though I would contend that insinuating the ERMS into the everyday work lives of the entire technical/electronic services staff is more challenging than an organizational structure that carves out a core set of staff who deals only with e-resources, and by extension, the ERMS. Workflow tracking within the ERMS Revamped workflows are only as strong as their ability to be performed in a timely manner. The great promise of electronic resource management systems, in my opinion, is workflow communication and tracking. Unlike purchasing a physical object such as a book that can be seen as it weaves its way through the various processes associated with it, the status of an electronic resource can be very hard to pinpoint. The ambitious use of ERMS as a communication tool, alerting staff when tasks need to be done or information needs to be disseminated, can fill a void in current e-resource management practice. Ticklers that email staff based on the date of some occurrence such as beginning of a trial, renewal reminder, or termination date serve a purpose, but are relatively unsophisticated compared to a workflow tracking mechanism predicated on the status of a resource, from the moment a decision is made to evaluate it through renewal or termination.

Data propagation Several libraries have purchased e-resource management systems from vendors other than their ILS provider, warranting the need to build interoperability across platforms. Acquisitions data include elements where necessary redundancy between the ILS and ERMS occurs, and with the SUSHI protocol now a NISO draft standard, it is even more crucial for ERMS implementers to find an automated means of moving acquisitions data into their systems. A subcommittee of the DLF ERMI Phase 2 steering group is currently investigating the feasibility of such interoperability. Their preliminary report is available at: www.haverford.edu/library/DLF_ERMI2/ACQ_ERMS_white_paper.pdf Summary remarks Libraries need sophisticated systems that facilitate communication and workflow, especially as the prospect of mainstream purchase of e-books grows closer. Moreover, as collection decisions are made consortially and the majority of resources purchased become electronic, libraries will require an ERMS to maintain effective control of these coveted, expensive resources. ERMS implementation strategies must include staff buy-in such that all involved recognize the importance of incorporating a new tool into their work. Library administrators and implementation managers need to foster a culture within their institutions where e-resource management in its many forms is seen as mission critical. In accomplishing this task, the toughest implementation challenge will be behind you. Further reading Jewell, T., Anderson, I., Chandler, A., Farb, S.E., Parker, K., Riggio, A. and Robertson, N.D.M. (2004), Electronic Resource Management: Report of the DLF ERM Initiative, Digital Library Federation, Washington, DC. Corresponding author Norm Medeiros can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

ERMS implementation

115

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1065-075X.htm

OCLC 23,2

Herding cats

116

Designing DigitalCommons @ The Texas Medical Center, a multi-institutional repository Leah Krevit Houston Academy of Medicine, Texas Medical Center Library, Houston, Texas, USA, and

Linda Crays The University of Texas School of Nursing at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine a pilot program implemented by the Houston Academy of Medicine-Texas Medical Center Library and The University of Texas School of Nursing at Houston to design the multi-institutional repository for the Texas Medical Center. Design/methodology/approach – The steps involved in the program are outlined and the lessons learned from the implementation are analyzed. Findings – The success of the institutional repository depends on appropriate communication with faculty, a deep understanding of the publishing process, identifying appropriate partners, designing a flexible technology infrastructure, and engaging in active collaboration with key players. The Library is the logical center for this activity. Practical implications – The paper should assist libraries with the unique activities involved in creating a viable multi-institutional repository in a research-intense academic medical environment. Originality/value – This paper analyzes the challenges inherent in introducing institutional digital repositories to the academic medical community. Currently, institutional repositories are being developed in only a small percentage of the academic medical centers in the USA. Keywords Libraries, Digital libraries, Digital storage, Health services, United States of America Paper type Research paper

OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives Vol. 23 No. 2, 2007 pp. 116-124 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1065-075X DOI 10.1108/1065075071074844

Background The players The Texas Medical Center (TMC), is the world’s largest medical center, where 63,000 people work at 42 independent member institutions. All 42 of the Texas Medical Center’s member institutions are not-for-profit, and are dedicated to the highest standards of patient and preventive care, research, education, and local, national, and international community well-being. These institutions include 13 hospitals and two specialty institutions, two medical schools, four nursing schools, and schools of dentistry, public health, pharmacy, and virtually all health-related careers (Texas Medical Center, 2006a, b). As an integral part of the Texas Medical Center, the Houston Academy of Medicine – Texas Medical Center Library has made significant contributions to the delivery of health care and the advancement of health sciences research. Since 1949, the HAM-TMC Library has served local physicians, the Texas Medical Center’s institutions, and the National Network of Libraries of Medicine’s South Central

Region in the areas of education, research, and clinical programs. The Library ranks in the top 10 percent of US academic health sciences libraries. Established in 1972, The University of Texas School of Nursing at Houston is one of six academic units of The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston and is ranked in the top 8 percent of nursing schools in the country. The University of Texas School of Nursing at Houston offers a broad range of coursework resulting in BSN, MSN, DSN, or DNP degrees. The school also provides a wide variety of settings in which students and faculty can study, conduct research, and participate in clinical practice. More than 5,000 nurses have graduated since 1972. In April of 2006, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board approved a Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) Degree Program, at the University of Texas School of Nursing at Houston, the first program of its kind in Texas (The University of Texas School of Nursing at Houston, 2006). Institutional repositories Institutional repositories are “digital collections that preserve and provide access to the intellectual output of an institution” (Crow, 2002). Institutional repositories provide many benefits to an academic environment. They manage and showcase the academic institution’s intellectual assets, making them searchable and available in one central location. They provide authors with an integrated and stable method for wide and rapid content dissemination. Many academic institutions are implementing institutional repositories for these reasons. There are multiple methods for doing so, including open source platforms, local servers, and vendor-supported off-site solutions. Each institution must identify its own specific needs and choose appropriately from the possible options available. The big concept: open access Journals form the hub of several activities in the academic environment, including scholarship, promotion, tenure, and communication. Scholarly publishing in medicine and the health sciences has traditionally centered on first, the print journal and now, the electronic journal. Electronic journals and databases have developed value-added aspects that make them very attractive and useful for the researcher. Costs for both journals and bibliographic databases have continued to escalate over the past 20 years, particularly in the past decade. Libraries are finding it increasingly difficult to fund and provide access to this ever-expanding array of electronic resources. The concept of Open Access offers a balance to this problem. Using Open Access journals and databases, libraries can provide resources and resource discovery at less cost, while researchers can publish and communicate their findings quickly and economically, keeping the processes of peer review and quality control intact. Discovery by a larger population of users is enhanced as well. The focus of DigitalCommons @ The Texas Medical Center[1] (Figures 1 and 2) is openly accessible published journal articles. The repository environment chosen for the pilot project provided access controls (password-protected access to specific articles or series submitted to the repository). Educating faculty and researchers about Open Access became an integral part of the overall project. The new NIH Public Access Policy for NIH-funded published research provided an additional impetus in the

Herding cats

117

OCLC 23,2

118

Figure 1. Homepage of the multi-institutional repository, Summer 2005

Figure 2. Interior page showing specific institutional branding

direction of Open Access (US Department of Health and Human Services/National Institutes of Health, 2005). The institutional repository pilot project: initial discussions Starting a pilot program between the HAM-TMC Library and The University of Texas School of Nursing at Houston was the brainchild of Leah Krevit, Associate Director for Collections Management at the Library, and Jan Johnson, Director of the Center for Education and Information Resources at the School of Nursing. Jan was instrumental in introducing the idea to faculty members at the SON and gaining support from the School’s Dean, while Leah developed a relationship with the technical and support staff at ProQuest and began investigating their new platform, DigitalCommons, in more detail. Completing the team was Linda Crays, a member of the School of Nursing’s CEIR Department who is currently on staff at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Linda was the communication liaison; she created the electronic presentations and training materials, coordinated all faculty-related events, donated her staff when necessary, and maintained inter-institutional information exchange. In Winter 2004, the HAM-TMC Library and the SON began collaborating on the institutional repository pilot project. The contributions each institution provided were easily defined: The Library supplied digital archiving and cataloging expertise and initial funding; the SON supplied faculty participation, staff support, and the test data; and ProQuest supplied the software, storage, and technical support. Once the initial players were in place, the planning and implementation phases began. The extraordinary benefits and academic potential of such a venture were obvious. Objectives The primary objective of the pilot project was to learn more about “the problem space”. Institutional repositories are a new frontier for libraries. Traditionally, the library was a storehouse for purchased published information. Now, its role could be expanded to include archiving and providing access to scholarly publications in a new way. While self-archiving is a common practice in some fields, such as physics, this process is less familiar in the health sciences and medicine. The institutional repository is a new paradigm for many; thus education and demonstration are critical to success (Foster and Gibbons, 2005). To address critical nursing shortages and extend their reach, faculty, researchers, and clinicians at the SON are creating a new pedagogical environment that includes e-learning, archived streaming video, and other educational technologies. The concept of the institutional repository fits this new paradigm very well. The pilot project allowed staff at the Library and the SON, as well as faculty and researchers, to learn while engaging in the actual process of creating the repository. Methodologies ProQuest’s digital repository product, DigitalCommons, was chosen as the platform for the repository for several reasons, including offsite hosting and technical support. In addition, ProQuest populated the repository with theses and dissertations authored by students from Texas Medical Center educational institutions. The DigitalCommons product offers a stable publishing and discovery environment while at the same time providing flexibility in terms of set-up, branding, and workflows. ProQuest also

Herding cats

119

OCLC 23,2

120

provides an online forum that enables product users to interact with one another and with technical staff to identify workflow and technical issues. For the pilot project, it was agreed that the Library would provide management and oversight of the technical infrastructure, creating general policies for submission, setting up the archival space for each department within the school, developing the online communities, and editing the interface as necessary. Staff from the SON’s Center for Education and Information Resources would support the repository in terms of faculty participation, providing training and creating accounts, submitting manuscripts, and developing internal processes. Application training After these preliminary discussions, the first task was to learn the web-based software, both front-end and back-end. ProQuest technical staff provided onsite training for the Library and SON administrators and was consistently available to answer questions and address specific needs. SON and Library project administrators attended a one-day training session covering the application’s internal structure and the web-based client interface. Decisions were made during the training session regarding permissions, self-archiving processes, and topics about which to educate faculty. First steps After training, discussions began regarding the SON’s centers and departments and the hierarchical order to be used to organize them in the repository’s virtual environment. While designing this structural outline, application to the entire Texas Medical Center was kept in mind. The first lesson learned appeared at this stage. Lag time between training and the creation of the necessary groups and categories led to time spent relearning; relearning steps, the order of steps, what can be edited and what cannot. Some faux pas became permanent due to the programming environment; administrators can still see the errors, although the public cannot. Executive support During this period, there was considerable discussion regarding the most appropriate methods for rolling out the project to the faculty. It was decided that support from above combined with excitement and interest provided by support staff was the most effective approach. The case was made to the Dean of the School of Nursing. Information about funding models, open access, faculty involvement, and the tangible benefits of a repository of scholarly publications was presented and reviewed. Upon receiving support from the Dean, the introduction and rollout of the DigitalCommons @ The Texas Medical Center pilot project to the faculty and staff seemed like the obvious next step. The roll-out, part one The introduction of the institutional repository concept took place during the Spring Teaching and Learning Day event held at the School of Nursing. Live web-based demonstrations were presented, a poster noting the benefits and ease of use was displayed, and team members were available during the entire event to answer questions and convey the professional and scholarly benefits to faculty. The initial

response was unanimously positive and plans for introduction to the wider faculty audience began. The roll-out, part two Dates were set to introduce the faculty to the concept of the digital institutional repository, the ease with which their publications could be instantly disseminated worldwide, and the historic implications. A PowerPoint presentation walked the audience through the few steps necessary to establish an account and publish their work in the repository. The presentation also served as the initial user guide. After the introduction, it was placed in the repository, demonstrating how simple it really was to post, access and share documents via a link in an email. Attendance at these roll-out sessions was abysmal. The roll-out, part three Subsequently, another approach was attempted. Personal invitations and announcements were sent to the entire faculty. The institutional repository demonstration was strategically arranged to follow a highly attended faculty meeting. Lunch was provided. While attendance improved and initial interest seemed high, the topic seemed to be less than invigorating. New strategy Excitement bubbling up from the faculty ranks was not occurring. The rollout strategy was again analyzed. The next plan was to invite only selected faculty chairs and department heads to an educational and training session. The hope was that a little healthy competition between departments could jump-start the program. Getting department chair support established and focusing more directly on specific groups, the goal was to get one department actively engaged in self-archiving their work. Food was again provided. Cats appear While these meetings were smaller and better attended proportionally, it is at this point that obstacles and controversies (otherwise known as “cats”) began making their presence known. At one meeting, the presenting team never moved beyond the second slide, as the audience stalled over the notion of publishing pre-prints in the repository. Concerns regarding medical and health sciences research pre-prints being made available in a public digital repository proved too great to allow the discussion to move forward. The introduction of the concept of the repository, the opportunity for greater peer review, the value of openly accessible research, and the powerful search tools – all of these points were lost. No benefits were discussed and no application training was delivered. At the next meeting, the concept of pre-prints did not appear on the second slide and the conversation flowed much more easily. General concepts and benefits were conveyed and discussed and audience participation was much more positive. Strategically placed cat herders It is at this point – post-idea introduction and pre-department implementation – that strong political alliances need to be established. While some members of the faculty intuitively understood the positive implications of a permanent, easily accessible, institutional repository for their work, for others the idea of a “digital commons” for the

Herding cats

121

OCLC 23,2

122

school seemed no more than a brown bag lunch topic. It became obvious the project required strategically placed team members within specific centers and departments in order to maintain the interest and momentum necessary for implementation. Whose cat is this? Legacy print was the next cat to appear. Preserving one’s work, notes and experiences permanently and for future generations was a very appealing aspect of the institutional repository. Since this generated real excitement, it soon became the main focus of the pilot project team. Print versions of published research and ways in which to make them digital was never the focus of the original project, but it was the primary area of faculty interest. However, preservation of print presented new challenges. Nine lives or just one? Creating a digital version of print research articles (often photocopies!) raised a number of issues. There was a high probability that this new digital version would become the only digital version. Who would provide the human resources to digitize and then post articles for which no electronic version ever existed? How was quality control to be implemented? How often would quality be checked? Could or should the digitization and quality control processes be outsourced? What about copyright? Who should be responsible for tracking the copyright issues and ensuring that information being posted to the institutional repository was being made available legally and responsibly? These were very tangible questions and one clear lesson emerged from this part of the project’s implementation: it is imperative that specific project goals be established and that everyone involved in the project deliver the same message. Otherwise, the cats come out to play and no amount of herding can corral them I don’t do mice Another lesson learned involved recognizing the level of technical proficiency of the participants prior to product rollout. The SON technology comfort level varied from group to group. Understanding the difference between “digital immigrants” and “digital natives” is a key to success in conveying a positive “digital” message, creating excitement, and ensuring participation (Prensky, 2001). How to successfully herd cats While the pilot project team never initially intended to learn cat herding as a viable skill, the overall pilot project experience proved invaluable, making the prospect of moving forward with larger institutions and even greater stakes less daunting. Critically important takeaways from the pilot project include: . Understand the political climate of the institution. . Partner with political or influential allies. . Establish clearly defined goals. . Understand the technical processes involved and how they might need to be tweaked for the institution. . Deliver a consistent message. . Know the client: especially their professional goals. . Estimate funding and resource needs as early as possible.

. .

Wear protective clothing. Always understand that cats will be cats.

The cat’s out of the bag now DigitalCommons @ The Texas Medical Center is a big step into the future for the Library and the educational institutions at the TMC. Starting on a small scale with a project that will eventually expand fully to the entire Texas Medical Center proved to be a productive pilot. The new world of “library as publisher” is both exciting and demanding. The success of the institutional repository depends on appropriate communication with faculty involved in publishing their research and on a deep understanding of the publishing process, its political and philosophical aspects, and its role in the academic community. Interaction with faculty and researchers at the School of Nursing provided an opportunity to explain the details surrounding copyright and open access to the published literature and their heightened awareness and understanding was a positive outcome. Communication with institutions, identifying appropriate partners, and then engaging in active collaboration are the key elements involved in making the repository a reality. The Library is the logical center for this activity. The existence of this new resource depends on the active participation of the Library’s traditional users, however, and this is a critical shift. Ultimately, these new endeavors will provide opportunities for collaboration and sharing within the academic community that will have long-lasting and positive effects. It is important, however, to remain alert for the sound of little cat feet[2]. Notes 1. DigitalCommons @ The Texas Medical Center, available at: http://digitalcommons.library. tmc.edu 2. With apologies to Carl Sandburg.

References Crow, R. (2002), The Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC Position Paper, The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, Washington, DC, available at: www.arl. org/sparc/IR/ir.html (updated August 27, 2006) (accessed September 29, 2006). Foster, N.F. and Gibbons, S. (2005), “Understanding faculty to improve content recruitment for institutional repositories”, D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 1, January, available at: www.dlib. org/dlib/january05/foster/01foster.html (accessed September 29, 2006). Texas Medical Center (2006a), Introduction to the Texas Medical Center (homepage), The Texas Medical Center, Inc., Houston, TX, available at: www.tmc.edu/tmc-introduction.html (accessed September 29, 2006). Texas Medical Center (2006b), Texas Medical Center Institutions (homepage), The Texas Medical Center, Inc., Houston, TX, available at: www.tmc.edu/institutions/ (accessed September 29, 2006). Prensky, M. (2001), Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, available at: www.marcprensky.com/ writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20 Part1.pdf (accessed September 29, 2006).

Herding cats

123

OCLC 23,2

(The) University of Texas School of Nursing at Houston (2006), homepage, The University of Texas School of Nursing at Houston, Houston, TX, available at: http://son.uth.tmc.edu/ (acccessed September 29, 2006). US Department of Health and Human Services/National Institutes of Health (2005), homepage, National Institutes of Health, NIH Public Access, Bethesda, MD, available at: http:// publicaccess.nih.gov/ (cited September 29, 2006).

124 Corresponding author Leah Krevit can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1065-075X.htm

SHERPA-LEAP

SHERPA-LEAP

A consortial model for the creation and support of academic institutional repositories Martin Moyle, Rebecca Stockley and Suzanne Tonkin

125

University College London, London, UK Abstract Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to introduce SHERPA-LEAP, a model for the consortial development, population and support of e-prints repositories. Design/methodology/approach – The organisational and technical structures of the consortium are described, including a brief summary of central and local resource responsibilities. Some positive and negative aspects of a consortial approach to institutional repository development, and of the SHERPA-LEAP model in particular, are identified. Outstanding issues and future plans for the consortium are outlined. Findings – SHERPA-LEAP is shown to be succeeding in its aims of developing and supporting e-prints repositories within the federal University of London. Some lessons learned from the SHERPA-LEAP approach are identified, but the SHERPA-LEAP consortial model is found to have been mostly beneficial to the participating institutions. In particular, the networking and experience-sharing opportunities which any consortial solution will facilitate are highly-valued by the SHERPA-LEAP partners. Originality/value – The paper is intended to help to inform the decision making of institutions and consortia, which are considering consortial solutions to the establishment, and maintenance of institutional repositories. Keywords Academic libraries, Collections management, Archives management Paper type Research paper

Background SHERPA-LEAP[1] (London Eprints Access Project, a partner in SHERPA[2]) was established in February 2004 as a consortium of seven Higher Education institutions. All were members of the federal University of London, whose Vice-Chancellor generously funded the project. The aims of the project were to create eprints repositories, hosted centrally by UCL (University College London), for each of the partner institutions, and to populate those repositories through collaborative advocacy. The seven development partners were: (1) Birkbeck. (2) Imperial College London. (3) King’s College London. (4) London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). (5) Royal Holloway. Grateful thanks are due to those colleagues from the SHERPA-LEAP partnership who contributed opinion and insight to this retrospective appraisal of the consortium and its achievement.

OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives Vol. 23 No. 2, 2007 pp. 125-132 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1065-075X DOI 10.1108/10650750710748423

OCLC 23,2

126

(6) School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). (7) UCL (lead partner). Funding was subsequently awarded for the expansion of the project to all the institutions of the University of London (there are 21 in total). SHERPA-LEAP currently has 13 partners, the following institutions having so far joined SHERPA-LEAP during its second phase: . Goldsmiths. . Queen Mary. . The School of Pharmacy. . School of Advanced Study. . The Institute of Cancer Research. . The Institute of Education. A third and final phase of SHERPA-LEAP will begin early in 2007; this will see the implementation of a cross-repository searching service for the consortium. Although all partners are members of the federal University of London, SHERPA-LEAP is an ad hoc consortium, which was created specifically to move forward the repositories agenda in London. A UCL-hosted repository is not a condition of SHERPA-LEAP membership: it is open to any institution from within the University with an eprints repository, or with plans to develop one, regardless of repository platform and physical location. Within the partnership there is substantial diversity: the partner institutions represent a mixture of size and mission, ranging from the large, multi-disciplinary and research-led to the smaller and highly-specialised. The SHERPA-LEAP consortial model Organisational structure Figure 1 shows the organisational structure of the SHERPA-LEAP Consortium. The project is overseen by the SHERPA-LEAP project team, consisting of a project director, a project manager, and a project officer. The project director (the director of UCL Library Services) chairs a Steering Group for the project, which meets two or three times per year. This Group is responsible for monitoring the progress of the project against its objectives, and for discussing and developing project policy. Each partner institution is represented on the Steering Group by a senior member of library staff. The Steering Group ensures that the project partners cohere at a strategic level. The project manager devotes roughly 0.1 FTE to SHERPA-LEAP, although this figure was higher during the early months of the project. He participates in the Steering Group, to whom he is accountable for the progress of the project and the management of its funds. The project manager also oversees the work of a full-time project officer, whose post was introduced as part of the second phase of the project. The project officer has a general remit for support activity within the SHERPA-LEAP community, providing advice and guidance to institutions on all matters relating to eprints, such as software configuration, metadata and copyright. An important part of the project officer’s role is in facilitating the sharing of experience between the partner institutions.

SHERPA-LEAP

127

Figure 1. SHERPA-LEAP: consortium structure

Each partner has a designated field officer, responsible for coordinating day-to-day aspects of repository administration, such as advocacy to the local community, the management of repository workflows within their institution, the design and implementation of collecting policies, and IPR matters. The SHERPA-LEAP field officers all work closely with the project officer. The field officers also meet regularly as a group, to share experience and discuss any issues to have arisen locally in the management of their repositories. Working with the field officers at each institution may be any number of intermittently-contributing technical staff, data entry officers, staff with responsibilities for advocating the service to potential depositors, and so on, depending on institutional needs and preference. The Project Team also organises outward-looking events, which supplement the locally focused work of the field officers, for the benefit of the wider community. A one-day conference[3], aimed at academics from the University of London’s institutions, was held in mid-2005, and a second conference will follow in mid-2007. A repositories workshop, aimed at library and related staff, is currently being planned for early 2007; this workshop will be open to all institutions in London and South-East England, and will enable the SHERPA-LEAP partners to share some of their learning and experience with others in the region. Technical structure The seven repositories in the first phase of the project were hosted by UCL. GNU EPrints was selected ahead of other open source platforms, primarily because of the availability of support from the SHERPA technical officer (who indeed proved to be very helpful during the set-up phase). The feeling among the early partners was that GNU EPrints offered a quick and direct route to repository creation, and that migration in future to other platforms, should that be desired by any partner, would be

OCLC 23,2

128

unproblematic. UCL continues to host repositories for most of the partners: at the time of writing, ten out of 13 repositories are UCL-based EPrints implementations, two partners run locally-hosted DSpace repositories, and one partner has a local EPrints installation. The 11 centrally hosted repositories sit on a single server. They are currently configured as 11 discrete archives running under a single copy of EPrints. SHERPA-LEAP did not implement a shared repository in the strictest sense – compare, for instance, the White Rose Consortium Eprints Repository, another successful UK consortial initiative (Proudfoot, 2005). The SHERPA-LEAP technical model was intended to allow most technical and policy decisions to be taken locally: the aim was to support diversity, and to focus on identifying and disseminating good practice, rather than to impose consistency. Each partner institution is responsible for configuring its own EPrints archive, to implement any locally-required functionality, and to achieve an institutional “look and feel”, without any need for SHERPA-LEAP branding. Partners also implement their own local metadata sets, decide on allowable document types and formats in support of their collecting policies, and develop their own deposit processes. Some guidance in EPrints configuration and metadata policy, mostly collated from existing sources, was available to the partners in the first phase, but there was a substantial onus on each participating institution to resource the customisation of its repository. The appointment of the project officer at the start of the second phase of the project has meant that improved central support for repository configuration is now available, although the emphasis is still on supporting partners, rather than carrying out technical work on their behalf. Costs The fixed costs of server management, software maintenance, and the consortial infrastructure are absorbed by the project. The project also makes some funds available for local advocacy materials and events, and funds central events such as the Conference. Beyond this, each partner is responsible for resourcing its own repository. As with any IR, the costs vary from implementation to implementation (Crow, 2002). Examples of policy decisions which need to be taken by each SHERPA-LEAP partner and which influence operating costs include: . Will authors upload papers, or will library staff mediate for them? . Will library staff contact publishers whose policy on self-archiving is unknown or ambiguous on behalf of prospective depositors? . Will the repository accept material in any format? Will some or all formats be migrated to a standard? . How will supplementary data, charts, and so on be handled at ingest? . Unless deposit is mandatory, the service will need marketing to potential depositors: who will do that? Review In this section some of the advantages and disadvantages of the consortial approach to repository development, especially relating to the SHERPA-LEAP consortial model, are considered.

Advantages It is clear that SHERPA-LEAP is achieving its mission of developing and populating repositories, and, in this over-riding respect, the consortial approach clearly has something to offer. The centrally hosted repository model offers partners a quick way to initiate an institutional repository (Rumsey, 2005), with significantly reduced resource overheads compared to those that would be required to host a repository locally. It makes feasible the possibility of launching an institutional repository in pilot mode, which is often an essential step towards permanent funding. It is evident that at certain smaller institutions within the partnership eprints repositories had not been identified as priorities for funding, and those repositories would not be in place without SHERPA-LEAP. The central service has also helped some of the larger partners, who have used the first phases of the project to learn through experience and to develop their own detailed set of requirements for a locally managed repository. As was anticipated, the migration of existing content away from the EPrints-based central service to other platforms is easily supported, and one of the original partners has already implemented migration to a local repository. The technical configuration of the central service, with the hosted repositories running under a shared copy of EPrints, brought some advantages in the early days of the project. While SHERPA-LEAP did not at the outset produce technical documentation to add to what was already in the public domain, the configuration files from each archive are visible to others with server access privileges: at set-up, UCL undertook the first repository customisation, and its configuration was available for copying by other partners. The shared copy of EPrints keeps the burden of central maintenance down, and mid-project enhancements, such as the addition of Analog reporting, have easily been propagated across the repositories. The administrative separation of each archive allows each partner to tailor its IR to suit the needs and expectations of the institution: for instance, if heavy institutional branding is important, that can be achieved; if a “plain vanilla” pilot is more appropriate, that is easily achievable; and document types and file formats can vary between institutions, with metadata to match. Organisationally, the consortium works well. The field officers network is especially appreciated: it offers the opportunity to share problems and solutions, ideas, and good practice, through the regular field officer meetings, the project web site and mailing list, and informal contacts across the consortium. Naturally, the scale of SHERPA-LEAP and the diversity of its member institutions means that across the partnership there is engagement with a wide range of academic disciplines, from performance art to hepatology, and substantial collective wisdom is held by the partners in terms of advocacy to different audiences. The appointment of the full-time project officer has undoubtedly helped to build on the experience-sharing potential of the consortial structure, to the advantage of all concerned. The facilitation of opportunities for mutual support is probably the day-to-day aspect of SHERPA-LEAP most valued by its members, and a key strength of the consortial approach. Since it began, SHERPA-LEAP has been linked with a number of other development projects. For instance, six of the partners are involved in SHERPA DP[4], which is demonstrating a model for the distributed digital preservation of eprints. The original seven partners participated in the ShibboLEAP project (Moyle, 2006), which saw the implementation of Shibboleth Identity Provider software at each of the

SHERPA-LEAP

129

OCLC 23,2

participating institutions. SHERPA-LEAP, because of its size, the diversity of its membership, and because the partners collectively control a significant body of repository content, is a potentially interesting testbed for new projects. Several partners have benefited from new development opportunities, which have become available to them through membership of the consortium.

130

Disadvantages Most of the perceived disadvantages of the SHERPA-LEAP consortial model relate to the technical structure. During the early set-up phase, in which the first seven institutions made the initial configuration of their archives, only limited technical support was available from the centre. A dedicated technical post would have used up most of the project resources, and it was felt that, taking advantage of the published EPrints documentation and its technical support network, and with some mutual help within the project, it was realistic to expect most institutions to be able to configure their repositories reasonably speedily. In practice, the size and skills sets of relevant technical departments varied considerably between partner institutions; the EPrints documentation, which, not unexpectedly, was not up to the standard set by commercial systems suppliers, was found to be patchy in places (it is since much improved!); and the result was that some partners found the initial set-up more problematic than had been anticipated. A related lesson learned, with hindsight, is that the project team provided insufficient clarity at the outset over local and central technical responsibilities. The technical help available to later entrants to the partnership from the centre is significantly better. Sharing a copy of EPrints across institutions helped to keep the costs down, but is not recommended in the long-term for two reasons: first, under EPrints version 2, there is a risk that all the archives go down together if a configuration change made to one archive fails to compile; secondly, as partners’ requirements became more sophisticated, it occasionally became desirable to edit the shared code which sits “above” the archives, and a change made at this level will generally affect each participating institutions whether it cares for it or not. In practice, the problems caused by the shared architecture have been minimal; but, if the project were starting afresh, it would seek to build better isolation for the constituent repositories. Future plans and outstanding issues The consortium has funding to mid-2008. The third phase of SHERPA-LEAP, the creation of a cross-searching service, will begin early in 2007. This will serve as a research showcase for the members of the University of London, perhaps stimulating further inter-institutional research collaboration and new partnerships with the industrial and commercial sectors. The aggregation of search results may help to smooth over some of the discrepancies in local coverage of different disciplines, since research in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences is under-represented in comparison with Science, Technology and Medicine subjects. In the long-term, it is expected that this work will become aligned with the national repository search infrastructure[5], which the JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee) is funding for the UK. Some partners have used their engagement with SHERPA-LEAP to help them to crystallise the ideal functional requirements for their institutional repository, to

consider what functionality is needed to cement the repository in the wider institutional research infrastructure, and in some cases to consider their strategy regarding digital asset management in its broadest sense across the institution. One of the original partners has migrated to a local DSpace implementation; other early partners are now considering moving their repositories away from the centrally hosted, EPrints-based service. Two migrations, to local Fedora and DigiTool platforms respectively, will take place in the near future, and others are expected to follow. The consortium will incorporate a number of repository platforms in future, and this will serve to enrich further the collective experience and knowledge of the partners. Meanwhile, it is expected that there will be demand for a centrally hosted repository service for some time to come. However, funding for the project is finite, and the sustainability of the consortial model post-project is an important issue to be addressed by the Steering Group. At this stage, there are some open questions: if a hosted repository service is to continue, how will it be resourced? How many participants will, by then, still desire such a service, and how many will have moved, or be ready to move to local repositories? If the hosted service should disband, will smaller partner institutions have the in-house skills to set up their own repositories? (how far has the supporting contribution of SHERPA-LEAP prevented those skills from being developed in-house?). What, if any, central solutions need to be in place for long-term preservation? Such sustainability concerns may easily be managed when consortia are established and have the benefit of stable income streams. However, for project-specific consortia with fixed-term funding, such as SHERPA-LEAP, the question of sustainability demands attention, and an exit strategy will be high on the agenda for 2007. Finally, an important part of any exit strategy will be to ensure that the network of mutual support and shared experience, which SHERPA-LEAP has facilitated, is maintained beyond the funded term of the project. The collective approach to discussion, ideas sharing and problem solving which evolved within the partnership is certain to continue across the London institutions. Conclusion The SHERPA-LEAP consortium set out to develop, support and populate eprints repositories within the federal University of London, and it is succeeding in these aims. The SHERPA-LEAP consortial approach is characterised by pragmatism. There is no shared repository – although a cross-searching service is under development – and the project supports the development of institutional repositories tailored to local needs. A central, hosted-repository service is available, but use of that service is not a condition of partnership, and it is not expected that institutions with hosted repositories will require them forever. The organisational structure of the consortium has facilitated a culture of mutual support within the partnership. Increased technical resource at the start of the project would clearly have made for smoother initial progress, but, with a few caveats relating to aspects of SHERPA-LEAP’s technical structure, the advantages of a consortial approach to the development of eprints repositories have outweighed the disadvantages for the partners and the project team. During the coming year, the Steering Group will assess the future needs of the partner institutions and consider both the form in which the SHERPA-LEAP consortial model might be sustained beyond the lifetime of the project, and the means by which this

SHERPA-LEAP

131

OCLC 23,2

132

might be achieved. The networking and experience-sharing opportunities which a consortial approach facilitates have proved to be key factors in the success of the partners’ repositories, and these highly-valued features of SHERPA-LEAP are likely to continue, regardless of what becomes of the central services in the longer term. Notes 1. SHERPA-LEAP, available at: www.sherpa-leap.ac.uk 2. SHERPA (Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access), available at: www.sherpa.ac.uk 3. SHERPA-LEAP Conference on Open Access to Research, 13 June 2005. available at: www. ucl.ac.uk/Library/scholarly-communication/londonad05.shtml 4. SHERPA DP: Creating a Persistent Preservation Environment for Institutional Repositories, available at: http://ahds.ac.uk/about/projects/sherpa-dp/ 5. UK Institutional Repository Search Service, Draft Project Proposal: available at: www.intute. ac.uk/projects/uk%20ir%20search%20project%20proposal%20v5.4web.pdf References Crow, R. (2002), “The case for institutional repositories: a SPARC position paper”, available at www.arl.org/sparc/IR/IR_Final_Release_102.pdf Moyle, M. (2006), “ShibboLEAP: seven libraries and a LEAP of faith”, Ariadne, Vol. 48, available at: www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue48/moyle Proudfoot, R. (2005), “The White Rose Consortium Eprints Repository: creating a shared institutional repository for the Universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York”, ALISS Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 19-23. Rumsey, S. (2005), “The institutional repository at LSE: plotting our course”, ALISS Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 15-18. Corresponding author Martin Moyle can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1065-075X.htm

EPrints makes its mark

EPrints makes its mark

Nigel Stanger and Graham McGregor University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand Abstract

133

Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to report on the impact and cost/benefit of implementing three EPrints digital repositories at the University of Otago, and to encourage others to follow suit. Design/methodology/approach – Three repositories were successfully implemented at the University of Otago using existing commodity hardware and free open source software. The first pilot repository was implemented within ten days, and is now a fully functional system that is being championed for institutional-wide use by the University Library. The other two repositories emerged from different community needs. One is academic, concerned with collecting and researching indigenous content; the other is designed to preserve and manage collective memory and heritage content for a small rural community. Findings – The paper shows that digital repositories can be established quickly and effectively with surprisingly few resources; readily incorporate any kind of extant digital content, or non-digital material that is converted to electronic form; meet multifarious needs, from academic institutions seeking to enhance research visibility and impact, to individuals and small communities collecting and preserving their unique memory and heritage records; and establish connectivity with the global community from the moment they go live. Practical implications – The technology and global support community have matured to a state where a fully-featured repository can be quickly and easily implemented. Originality/value – This paper describes the short history, development and impact of the first live repositories of their kind in New Zealand. Their utility and implications for the unique communities that have given rise to them are also explored, by way of encouraging others to take up the digital challenge. Keywords Collections management, Digital storage, University libraries, New Zealand Paper type Research paper

Introduction Digital institutional repositories have become a hot topic in recent years, and many institutions worldwide are now actively implementing them. This article discusses how low cost, yet fully functional digital institutional repositories (IRs), can be set up in a very short time frame. The authors reflect on the lessons learned while implementing three different repositories at the University of Otago, and discuss some new and exciting applications of digital repositories arising from these. The authors also suggest some best practices for implementing an IR and discuss issues that must be considered when moving from a small-scale pilot implementation to a full rollout. The authors would like to thank Professor Arthur Sale of the University of Tasmania, Eve Young of the University of Melbourne and Stevan Harnad of the University of Southampton for their enthusiastic assistance and support. The authors are also indebted to project Research Assistants Monica Ballantine and Jeremy Johnston for their considerable expertise and enthusiasm, and to School IT Manager Brent Jones for deploying and maintaining the repository server. A final acknowledgement must go to Te Tumu and the Cardrona community for the wonderful opportunities that they have provided.

OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives Vol. 23 No. 2, 2007 pp. 133-141 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1065-075X DOI 10.1108/10650750710748432

OCLC 23,2

134

Interest in institutional repositories at the University of Otago was sparked by the release of the “New Zealand Digital Strategy” by the New Zealand Government in May 2005. The strategy aims to ensure that “New Zealand is a world leader in using information and technology to realize our economic, environmental, social and cultural goals” (New Zealand Government, 2005). In parallel with this, the National Library of New Zealand set up an expert working party with representatives from across the research sector to investigate the feasibility of establishing a national institutional repository for New Zealand’s research outputs (Rankin, 2005). The National Library is fostering a work program to improve access to New Zealand’s research outputs, by collaborating with institutions to stimulate the set-up of research repositories. In May 2005, two senior University of Otago staff undertook a study tour of Digital Challenges facing universities in the USA. Their report provided the impetus for the first IR pilot in Otago’s School of Business. Project work began on November 7, 2005, with the following goals (Stanger and McGregor, 2006): . To establish a proof of concept demonstrator for storing and providing open access to digital research publications in the School of Business. . To evaluate the potential of the demonstrator for adoption by the wider University of Otago research community. . To connect the School of Business with the global research community, in line with the feasibility study and recommended actions for a national repositories framework (Rankin, 2005). This article discusses how three different repositories were implemented from scratch, the issues that arose during implementation and the process that has lead to their subsequent development and use. EPrints Otago The GNU EPrints repository management software was chosen for the pilot repository because it was widely used, well supported, inexpensive and would not lock the School of Business into specific technologies or vendors (Sale, 2005). The development team also had prior experience with the software. A rapid prototyping methodology was adopted, emphasizing quick releases of visible results with multiple iterations, in order to create interest in the project at an early stage, and enable a positive feedback cycle. A sandbox was used to test entries and entry formats before the material went live. Tools, techniques, development tasks and other relevant issues were documented on an ongoing basis using a private wiki. The pilot implementation was completed within ten days of assembling the project team, with most of this time spent tweaking the look and feel of the web site and collecting content (Stanger and McGregor, 2006). This outcome was made possible by establishing a very clear brief to “prove the concept,” rather than taking on a large scale project involving many different disciplines, researchers and research outputs from the outset. Early decisions were made to restrict the content and content domain for the pilot, in order to speed the collection process and minimize requirements “creep”. Meetings were kept to a minimum and policy and procedural issues that required institutional decisions were noted as work progressed, rather than tackled head on. The project was widely publicized within the School and Heads of Departments were consulted to ensure top-level buy-in. This approach produced

immediate results and the repository was quickly populated with a range of working/discussion papers, conference items, journal articles, and theses. There was no cost associated with the GNU EPrints software or its associated online community, and from a technical point of view, the project was wonderfully straightforward. The School of Business repository[1] was deployed on a spare mid-range server running FreeBSD, which meant that hardware and software costs were essentially nil. In other words, if there happens to be some spare hardware lying around, an initial repository can be set up very cheaply, and expanded later. A minimalist approach was taken with regard to gathering content; partly because of the prototypical nature of the project, and partly because material in the hand is worth more than promises by authors to supply content at some indeterminate future date. New publications are always being created, and content acquisition is a moving target that has to be effectively managed. Once basic content acquisition and data entry protocols were put in place, an incremental methodology was adopted. Content was limited to voluntary contributions in PDF format from colleagues in the School of Business, but with no constraint on the type of output. As of November 30, 2006, the repository contains 409 documents covering a wide range of topics and document types, with new content being continually acquired. It is remarkable what can be achieved by a small, dedicated, knowledgeable and enthusiastic implementation team. As with any project, the right mix of technical, and project management skills is crucial in making things happen. The project team comprised the School’s Research Development Coordinator (project management and evangelism), an Information Science lecturer (software implementation), the School’s IT manager (hardware and deployment) and two senior students (research, content acquisition and data entry). Oversight was provided by a standing committee comprising representatives from Information Technology Services, the University Library and the School of Business. Impact of the pilot Traffic and downloads were generated from the moment the system went live, and the Tasmania statistics package (Sale and McGee, 2006) that sits alongside the repository became an object of fascination in its own right. The initial response to the pilot repository seemed spectacular, with nearly 19,000 downloads recorded within the first three months from 80 different countries. This level of traffic excited considerable interest from both inside and outside the University. However, while the repository had indeed been accessed from 80 countries, it was salutary to discover that the download rates were in fact over-inflated by a factor of about five. This was due to an undocumented assumption in the Tasmania statistics software (Sale and McGee, 2006) that resulted in hits being counted multiple times if statistics were gathered more often than once per day. The lesson here is to always be wary of computers bearing wonderful news! Despite the downward adjustment to overall download rates, there is still ongoing healthy interest in the repository, as shown in Figure 1. Interestingly, the repository experiences many more abstract views than full text downloads. An informal analysis of hit rates across eight other repositories that generate similar statistics, shows that some experience the same pattern as Otago, while others experience more downloads

EPrints makes its mark

135

OCLC 23,2

136

Figure 1. Total monthly hit rates (bar chart, left axis) and number of items (line chart, right axis) for the Otago School of Business repository, up to November 30, 2006

than abstract views. Further investigation is needed to determine why this variation occurs. Otago’s rate of traffic growth has also been compared with the repositories mentioned above. Figure 2 indicates that traffic to the Otago repository grew much more rapidly during its early months than for any of the other eight repositories investigated, including some that are much older and larger (see Table I). This may be

Figure 2. Comparison of traffic growth across nine EPrints repositories, as of November 30, 2006 (the different line styles are used only to distinguish the lines; they have no other significance)

a consequence of growing public awareness of digital repositories, or there may be other factors involved. A research project is currently underway to investigate possible reasons for this finding. An exciting outcome of the pilot has been the ability to make available material that might otherwise be difficult or impossible to access, and thus increase the likelihood of it being cited (Harnad, 2005; Hajjem et al., 2005). For example, Figure 3 shows that nearly three-quarters of the items in the Otago repository are items that might not otherwise be readily accessible, such as theses, dissertations, and departmental working/discussion papers. Indeed, the top ten downloaded items as of November 30, 2006 comprise four departmental working papers, two conference papers, two research reports, one journal paper and one PhD thesis. The full text of these items is also readily searchable by major Internet search engines such as Google (Sale, 2006), often within only a few days of being deposited. The pilot was not only technologically successful, but also generated much local and national interest. Consequently, after a mere six months, the pilot became the official repository for Otago’s School of Business. It has also been adopted as a model with potential for roll-out across the entire university. As there are four academic Divisions at Otago (of which the School of Business is one), a federated model of repositories is envisaged that would be centrally linked and managed by the University Library. Having proved the concept, it has been (and is) relatively simple to develop other repositories with similar speed. The key is having an experienced team and a highly focused project management plan.

Repository dLIST (University of Arizona, USA) E-LIS (CILEA, Italy) University of Melbourne (Australia) University of Nottingham (UK) University of Otago/Cardrona University of Otago/School of Business University of Otago/Te Tumu Rhodes University (South Africa) University of Tasmania (Australia)

Age in months

No. of items