|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|  | Home > Departments > Library Dean's Office > Integration of Digital Library Services Integration of Digital Library Services Integration of Digital Library Services Introduction Through a series of strategic planning studies, the Sheridan Libraries at Johns Hopkins University have revisited the provision of content and services to support research, learning, scholarly communication and preservation. As part of this effort, through a planning grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Associate Director for Library Digital Programs, Sayeed Choudhury, conducted an environmental scan and developed a set of recommendations for integration of digital library services. For several years, Johns Hopkins has engaged in digital library initiatives, which reflected widespread interest from faculty and students. Each project or activity served the needs of specific communities but, as the scope of digital activity increased, the lack of cohesion amongst these initiatives became evident and increasingly problematic. The examination of digital library services and corresponding recommendations reflect an internal review at Hopkins, external examination of practices at peer institutions, papers and presentations from various conferences, multiple publications, an Executive Briefing at Apple Computer's headquarters, and ongoing dialogue with Choudhury's classmates from the 2003 Frye Leadership Institute. OCLC recently produced an environmental scan of the information environment (http://www.oclc.org/membership/escan/) to "examine the significant issues and trends impacting OCLC, libraries, museums, archives and other allied organizations, both now and in the future." This report represents a similar effort with an objective of developing a set of recommendations for Johns Hopkins University. Appendix A lists the bibliography of resources for this planning study. This planning study confirms the belief that libraries face challenges given widespread changes in the information landscape. However, these challenges can be viewed as opportunities to strengthen the Library's existing place in the University. In considering universities, John Henry Newman identified four major functions: research, teaching, dissemination and preservation. The main conclusion of this planning study rests upon the notion that libraries must stress greater integration of these functions. As a result of this planning study, Johns Hopkins has determined how it must move forward with a set of strategic initiatives, in collaboration with the other Libraries and central IT unit at Hopkins, that will result in an open, modular digital library infrastructure to support integrated, seamless access to digital content and services. This infrastructure will provide flexibility and adaptability that will be essential in a fluid and dynamic information environment. Additionally, the Library Digital Programs at Johns Hopkins can provide an organizational blueprint for other institutions that wish to integrate the Library more closely into the research and learning activities of the University. This report begins with a description of the environmental scan, and follows with a discussion of an organizational framework for developing recommendations, which are discussed in the final section. Environmental Scan Visits to Peer Institutions The OCLC environmental scan stresses the idea of identifying patterns from seemingly chaotic and disparate environments-an effort that may have particular relevance for libraries today. Especially in times of great change, it is worthwhile to examine both familiar and unfamiliar territory. As part of the effort to examine the "familiar" Choudhury visited the following peer institutions: MIT, Harvard, Cornell, Stanford, California Digital Library (CDL), University of Washington, University of Michigan, and University of Virginia. At each institution, multiple individuals provided excellent feedback and suggestions about integrating digital library services. For the purpose of this report, Choudhury will discuss certain key elements and observations. This choice reflects the need to produce a concise report; the richness of these visits could be fully described only through a separate, comprehensive document or presentation. 1 Not surprisingly, these visits revealed both commonalities and differences in the approaches and strategies for digital library content and services. Every institution faces fiscal constraints, increasing demand, both in diversity and scope, for digital content and services, and the challenge of balancing digital initiatives with "traditional" priorities. All institutions consider repositories a key component of their digital library infrastructure, with some institutions working with existing systems, while others are still considering their options. MIT, Virginia and Harvard are not only working with existing repositories, but are developing them. The institutions are often choosing a particular area or emphasis in moving forward with repositories. For example, for their repository efforts, Stanford and Michigan are emphasizing connections between high volume digitization workflow and ingestion of materials into a repository. Each institution reacted favorably to the idea of greater integration for digital library services. CDL, in particular, offers a set of services for a widespread community of partners, emphasizing that the integration of services allows partners to focus on their particular priorities. Regarding digital library services, there were two major trends or observations. First, each institution approached the idea of integration with varying degrees of centralized control. That is, there was diversity of opinion regarding the reasonable or appropriate level of expectations from our faculty and students. For example, for digital preservation, should libraries provide a specific set of requirements for ingestion into a repository? What happens if a faculty member does not provide the "appropriate" metadata? Do we offer digital preservation as a guarantee, or perhaps through the lens of risk-analysis? Second, many individuals cited the need to clearly articulate digital library services and consider organizational efficiencies to meet those service needs. For example, with funding from the Mellon Foundation, Cornell focused on "Models for Academic Support: Restructuring Organization" (http://www.library.cornell.edu/MAS/) and the University of Washington focused on the concept of "Digital Scholarship" (http://www.lib.washington.edu/digitalscholar/). These studies emphasize the idea that digital library infrastructure must support our customers' needs for content and services, and not vice versa. Interestingly, several individuals commented that, while their institutions are resource-constrained, external funding sometimes introduced greater burden into digital library operations. This convergence may reflect a tendency to focus on digital projects from a collection-centric, rather than customer-centric or even broader perspective. Choudhury focused on this particular issue while considering the other aspects of the environmental scan, including an internal review at Hopkins. Johns Hopkins Digital Library Services Planning Team Choudhury convened a Digital Library Services Planning Team (DLSPT) to consider the integration of digital library services with a particular focus on the Hopkins community. This Hopkins effort complemented the findings from peer institutions. Appendix B provides a list of names and institutional affiliations for the DLSPT. Team members represented a broad range of disciplines and divisions within Hopkins. As a starting point for discussions, the team considered a "vision statement" drafted by Choudhury. The DLSPT revised this initial vision statement as they considered and prioritized digital library users and services. Appendix C provides the vision statement that reflects the DLSPT's feedback and Appendix D outlines the results regarding digital library users and services. The Sheridan Libraries' Executive Committee2 (EC) conducted an additional planning activity. The EC developed a list of criteria for prioritizing digital projects. The process and results of this prioritization exercise are described in Appendix E. While the specific order of prioritization criteria may be revised, and other institutions may choose different criteria or ranking, the process for generating this list is applicable to other institutions. The priority list provides a clear framework for allocating existing and future resources in a cohesive, consistent manner, with an emphasis on our faculty and students' needs. Perhaps most interestingly, by examining both Hopkins' and peer institutions' assessments, one can recognize the relevance of the four themes identified by Newman: research, learning, dissemination and preservation. Academic libraries have always sought to support the University's mission and, while the manner in which digital library collections, services and infrastructure support the University's mission may be different, the core values and mission remain valid. Given the potential scope and magnitude of digital initiatives, the real challenge may lie in choosing a set of local practices, policies, and activities that reflect the diverse and dynamic need of our scholars with enough flexibility to adapt to global trends and patterns. Global Trends As part of his core responsibilities, Choudhury continuously examines a multitude of resources that describe global changes, trends and patterns related to changes in information management and digital scholarship. For this planning effort, the following resources, meetings, or interactions provided particularly relevant feedback: An executive briefing at Apple's headquarters in Cupertino (with colleagues from the Libraries and central IT at Hopkins)
Both Tapscott and Rushkoff describe the new forms of communication and collaboration from the so-called "Net Generation" (loosely defined as those born after 1984). This generation views information technology as part of the ambient environment, rather than as a distinct or separate set of tools. Another distinguishing and characterizing aspect of this generation is that television no longer plays as large a role in their life. Tapscott, in particular, emphasizes that television represents an inherent one-way, passive interaction whereas the Internet fosters a more engaged, interactive experience. This generation apparently values independence, free expression, critical thinking, and strong views. Collaboration is not only valued, it is the norm for both work and play. Interactive, query-based learning or reasoning seems much more familiar to this generation. Video games, and other forms of multimedia, play a more prominent role in this generation's lives. Men between the ages of 18 and 24 spend more time playing video games and interacting with the Internet than they do watching television (much to the dismay of the network broadcasting community). There is evidence to support the idea that video game environments may actually foster certain cognitive skills or even provide a viable option for learning environments. Video game makers also promote the idea that content is mutable. By gaining access to the source code from older games, "mod-makers" can modify the underlying code to transform video games from one form to another. Some video game companies even hold contests to recognize the most radical and innovative changes in scene, costume, etc. One can discuss, and debate, these trends at length. But the most interesting observation regarding these trends relates to the fact that scientists and, in some cases, humanists also exhibit these patterns. For example, large-scale astronomy reflects the growing trend of e-science. Scientists used to acquire data, analyze these data, and then publish the results. Now, with cyberinfrastructure-based science projects, scientists acquire (or integrate) data from distributed and diverse datasets, publish them first in the form of a data release, and then analyze the data. The era of the lone scientist making individual discoveries is giving way to teams of scientists who collaborate over distance and "publish" in non-traditional formats so they can use non-textual queries to conduct research and teaching. They believe that content must be preserved, but in a dynamic manner. And, in the case of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and Virtual Observatory, they believe the Library should provide this service. These observations support the idea that our scholars and students want seamless, integrated access to digital collections and services. Given the need to support access to "chunks" of data by researchers and collaborators throughout the world, there are profound implications for how libraries develop digital library infrastructure to support collections and services. Far too often, libraries and universities end up producing both data and service "silos" or "stovepipes." As an example, consider that instructional technology groups, in good faith efforts to meet short-term deadlines, may deposit digital content into courseware systems. By doing so, it becomes much more difficult to move such content into other services such as e-publishing or e-portfolio systems, and to preserve content for long-term access. There is a growing movement, both within and beyond the digital library community, to develop an architecture to support seamless, integrated access to digital collections and services. Dan Greenstein has referred to this architecture as the "layered library." Tim DiLauro, the technical lead for the Digital Knowledge Center at Hopkins has used the phrase "unbundle first, then interface between modules" to describe this approach; OCLC uses the term "unplug and play." The UK has considered this approach to support connections between repositories, e-learning and e-portfolio systems (http://www.cetis.ac.uk/members/frameworks/index.html). The commercial sector uses the label "service oriented architecture." Each of these phrases describes a modular, open standards based approach to infrastructure that will provide the necessary flexibility to support both collections and services. Given the emphasis on open standards, and correspondingly open-source systems, this type of digital library development requires in-house expertise and resources (i.e., it is less likely, and even undesirable, for a vendor to provide the complete system). Consequently, there are many opportunities for libraries to make contributions. As stated previously, the challenge may lie in identifying and choosing the appropriate opportunities. How can libraries consider this issue? Library Digital Programs Organizational Framework The Dean of University Libraries at Hopkins, Winston Tabb, has stated that libraries are built upon three pillars: collections, services, and infrastructure. It is worthwhile to consider these pillars in combination with the four themes of a University: research, learning, dissemination and preservation. One can construct a matrix as follows:
If this matrix is filled in with specific digital initiatives or activities, one notes the following matrix:
This listing provides a representative example of the range of digital initiatives that might comprise such a matrix. By delineating digital initiatives in this manner, one can observe that some institutions have focused on the "rows" (e.g., by emphasizing their local, unique collections) or the "columns" (e.g., by focusing on preservation activities). A particular emphasis may be appropriate for an individual institution. By placing specific projects and staff within this matrix, a library can identify "gaps" in its digital initiative portfolio. Perhaps more importantly, by combing such efforts, the digital library community could identify broader gaps, which could be used to foster the most productive partnerships and collaboration. While not mentioned specifically within this matrix, there is a set of services or activities that span multiple cells, or inform decisions through direct engagement with our customers. As an example, metadata can be appropriately placed within many of the cells of the organizational matrix. Additionally, assessment activities such as usability or economic analyses also impact several of the areas of the framework. These types of activities represent opportunities for libraries to reinforce cohesion among projects and to provide consulting services. The matrix perspective also conveys the appropriate idea that projects, specific services, and technologies will undoubtedly change, but the fundamental elements of the axes will remain valid. Consequently, it may be more effective for library digital programs to organize staff and resources by considering the characteristics of appropriate cells, rather than by project or technology. Recommendations As the final step in considering integration of digital library services at Hopkins, the Sheridan Libraries' (and its partners') digital initiatives are described within this library digital programs organizational framework:
This final point emphasizes the third dimension of this framework, an axis that describes stages of implementation ranging from research to production. The Digital Knowledge Center (DKC) at Hopkins represents a unique entity that has resulted in a dedicated R&D capability within the Libraries. The types of R&D within Hopkins Libraries occurs within academic departments or "on the margins" within libraries at other institutions. This presence has allowed Hopkins Libraries' to collaborate closely with faculty as research partners, and to consider explicitly how developing technologies and systems might support collections and services. Like other institutions, the Libraries at Hopkins have a Systems group and central IT organization that provide production support and services. These groups and the DKC have reached agreement on several pilot initiatives and the need to develop a service-oriented architecture. For example, since the inception of this planning process, three major initiatives have been launched including an eportfolio pilot project, a portal evaluation and implementation project, and involvement in Sakai. The University Libraries and the IT organizations are working collaboratively on each of these initiatives. The focus on building a service-oriented architecture, with an understanding of projects within the organizational framework, has fostered these important, and unprecedented, connections within Hopkins. While these initiatives represent an excellent first step, it is clear that R&D groups need to remain focused on R&D and moving toward a new architecture is difficult for production groups with responsibilities for operational systems. The third dimension of the matrix framework highlights the resource "gap" between these groups-applications developers who can transfer the R&D into prototypes for eventual production deployment. In many institutions, these staff work within academic computing units; perhaps a better term for such a group is academic digital programs. Such a term conveys the applications development aspects of academic computing, but also the integration of collections and services with supporting infrastructure. An academic digital programs group can act as the bridge between the Libraries and the central IT organization. By migrating R&D efforts into prototype and preliminary deployment projects, this group can support the transition of projects into full production environments within the Libraries and the central IT organization at Hopkins. Through a combination of greater collaboration, existing budget reallocation, fee-based consulting through the Entrepreneurial Library Program, grant funds, and Mellon Foundation support, the Sheridan Libraries will create five staff positions that will augment existing Library Digital Programs staff. These five positions, along with example responsibilities, are described as:
For fiscal year 2004-05, the total salary and fringe benefits support for these five positions will total $400,000. Collaboration and budget reallocation can provide ongoing, long-term support for these positions; but grant funds, Foundation support and fee-based consulting revenues will be necessary to provide near-term support to enable the Libraries to demonstrate persuasively the utility and value of these positions. Faculty, students and administrators at Hopkins have commented that the Sheridan Libraries represents a unifying, cohesive source of community in an otherwise decentralized environment. By creating these positions, the Library Digital Programs at Johns Hopkins will create an academic digital programs group that can support research, learning, scholarly communication and preservation through the Libraries' collections, services and infrastructure, and create a model for the library as community for the virtual environment.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
