digital asset management task group recommendations:

Digital Asset Management Task Group

Recommendations:Content and Digital Library Software

for the

CU System

24 February 2005

Digital Asset Management at CU

• First Meeting May 24th 2004

• Task Groups on Content and Infrastructure formed June 2004

Content Task GroupMEMBERS

• Jennifer Parker, Art & Architecture Librarian, University Libraries, UCB (Co-Chair)

• Elaine Paul, Visual Resources Curator, Dept. of Art & Art History, UCB (Co-Chair)

• Lynn Lickteig, Director of Visual Resources, College of Architecture & Planning, UCD

• Holley Long, Systems Librarian for Digital Initiatives, University Libraries, UCB

• Cindy Hashert, Coordinator of Collections and Electronic Resources, Auraria Library, UCD

• Christopher Cronin, Electronic Resources Cataloger, University Libraries, UCB

• Erika Doss, Professor, Art & Art History, UCB

• Yem Fong, Faculty Director for Collection Development, University Libraries, UCB

• Judith Rice Jones, Social Science Librarian, Kraemer Family Library, UCCS

• Kathy Andrus, Director, Teaching & Learning Center, UCCS

CHARGE

1. Digital image acquisition/collection development/content recruitment

2. Digital image access and retrieval

This Task Group will be expected to coordinate its work with that of the Infrastructure Task Group

Infrastructure Task GroupMEMBERS

• Holley Long, University Libraries, UCB (Chair)

• Jeffrey Beel, Computing Information & Network Services, UCD

• Jon Giltner, Information Technology Services, UCB

• Lynn Lickteig, College of Architecture & Planning, UCD

• Rick Losoff, Libraries, UCB• Elaine Paul, Visual Resources

Curator, Dept. of Art & Art History, UCB

• Mark Werner, Information Technology Services, UCB

CHARGE

“… analyze the critical issues related to the requisite enterprise-wide infrastructure for digital asset use and management”

Task Group Recommendations:

Initial Content = ARTstor

Infrastructure = Luna Insight

ARTstor

• Trial period at all 3 campuses:

January 18-February 1, 2005

• Faculty Focus Groups

• Questionnaire

Faculty Focus Groups

• Boulder, 28 participants– 12 from the Department of Art and Art History– 16 from other departments

• UCCS, 12 participants– 4 from art and architecture– 8 from other departments

• Auraria, 11 participants– 10 from art and architecture– 1 from other department

ARTstor Training

• Boulder campus held 2 training sessions and 1 demonstration, plus 1 on 1 training

• Auraria held 2 demonstrations, plus 1 on 1 training

• UCCS did not hold training sessions but offered 1 on 1 assistance

ARTstor Questionnaire

1. How do you currently present images in your courses? Check all that apply:

• 35 mm slides ___35__ • PowerPoint ___19___• Other digital presentation software ___2___• Web site ___18___• Overhead transparencies ___15___• Other 13 (1 original art; 1 WebCt; 1 handouts; 2

photocopies; 3 books; 3 videos/DVDs; 2 “other” unspecified)

2. How many images do you typically use per course?

3. If you are outside the disciplines of art and

architecture, how do you integrate images into your

curriculum?

4. How many times did you use ARTstor during the two-week

trial period?

5. Did you download and use the Offline Image Viewer (ARTstor’s

presentation software)?

Yes ____19____

No ____17____

Tried, but experienced difficulty____4___

6. How easy was it to find ARTstor content?

very easy ____24____ or _____53_____%

moderately easy ___17___ or ___38___%

difficult _____4_____ or _____9_____%

very difficult _____0____ or _____0____%

7. How easy was it to use the Offline Image Viewer?

very easy _____7_____ or ____32____%

moderately easy ___11___ or ___50___%

difficult ____3____ or ____14____%

very difficult _____1____ or _____4____%

8. Did you incorporate your own images into the Offline Image

Viewer?

Yes ____1______

No _____30_____

9. Approximately what percentage of your image needs will ARTstor

meet? Less than 10% ____9____ or ____21____%

10-25% _____5_____ or _____12_____%

25-50% _____10_____ or _____23_____%

50-75% _____8_____ or _____19_____%

75%+ _____11_____ or _____25_____%

10. In addition to the content provided, what other materials

would you like to see in ARTstor?

11. How do you feel about the overall image quality in ARTstor?

poor ____2____ or ____5_____%

average/acceptable __5.5__ or __13___%

good ____18____ or ____43____%

excellent___16.5___ or ____39____%

12. Would a product like ARTstor make you more likely to use digital

images in your courses?

Yes ____35______

No ____4______ (2 of whom already teach with digital images)

13. If you feel that ARTstor’s content would meet some or most

of your digital image needs, yet you think that you would NOT use ARTstor, please explain why:

14. Please provide your overall assessment of ARTstor:

Conclusions

Issues that may have affect responses:

Training Tech Support Nature of Image Use

The Content Task Group highly recommends that the University of

Colorado system subscribe to ARTstor.

ARTstor PricingARTstor Archive Capital

Fee (ACF) W/ 15% discount*

Annual Access fee (AAF)

W/ 20% Discount**

UCB $40,000 $36,000 $20,000 $16,000

UCD/Auraria $17,000 $14,450 $8,500 $6,800

UCCS*** $17,000 $14,450 $8,500 $6,800

* A 15% discount on the ACF was given to participants who subscribed to ARTstor prior to December 31, 2004. It may be possible to still negotiate for this discount

** The AAF is prorated until the archive reaches 500,000 images – expected 1/01/2006. For 2005, participants pay 80% of the AAF.

*** Previously we had classified UCCS as a small institution when in fact it is classified as a Carnegie Masters I institution which makes it a "medium" size institution under ARTstor’s classification system.

Why ARTstor?

Over time, ARTstor would save the CU system decades of work and millions of dollars. The images are already

digitized and cataloged.

• ARTstor: cost per image after 10 years of subscribing at UCB = .48

• ARTstor: cost per image after 10 years of subscribing at UCD/Auraria = .21

• ARTstor: cost per image after 10 years of subscribing at UCCS = .21

• Perpetual licenses for commercial digital images: average cost per image = $5.00 (does not include expense of cataloging)

If ARTstor, why also a Digital Asset Management System?• ARTstor won’t include CU’s unique image

collections– does not currently offer hosting services

• ARTstor does not accommodate audio, video, or animation files

• ARTstor does not contain images outside the disciplines of art and architecture

• CU requires local control of its image collections for timely content additions, metadata quality control, and research, copyright, and privacy issues

A Common Software Platform…

• CU’s Digital Asset Management Steering Committee should coordinate selection of the DAM software for the CU system– Presents a single, unified interface for digital

assets across the CU system– Financial incentives to collaborate– Collection managers, systems administrators,

and end-users only have to learn one system

…On Separate Servers

• However, it is important to recognize that every CU campus and each academic unit has its own unique: – Needs for digital asset management– Organizational structure, resources, staff,

policies, procedures, and mission– IT infrastructure and technical support – Timeline for the digital transition

Infrastructure Task Group

• Recommends Luna Insight as the common digital asset management software for the CU system.

• Recognizes the need for separate implementations (server + Insight license) across the system

Infrastructure Task Group

• Reviewed 19 different products over 5 months– Selection criteria (75 criteria)

• System architecture• Functionality• Scalability• Interoperability• Vendor Services

– Turn key vs. open source (eliminated 6 systems)– Request for information survey (11 vendors responded)

• Evaluation results– Not designed for educational uses– Proprietary databases– Limited metadata models

The Digital Asset Management Systemof Choice

• Infrastructure Task Group selected Luna Insight because:– Only system that met majority of criteria– Enterprise turn key solution – Open, modular system architecture

• Scalable• Interoperable

– Flexible metadata models– Multiple collections possible– Large university client base

Metadata Tool Investigation

• December 2004: Evaluate Luna’s cataloging tool called Inscribe.

• Metadata subgroup formed and chaired by Chris Cronin, Electronic Resources Cataloger (UCB Libraries)

• Report …

• Task groups endorse Inscribe

Luna Insight Software Costs

• Software purchase price $5,000• Yearly maintenance and support ($3,700-

$5,700)• Minimum Services Needed to Get Started

– Installation ($1,500-$3,000)– Training ($4,500 for 3 days + travel expenses for on-

site training)• Collection managers• System administrators• End users

• Totals = $14,700- $18,200

Optional Services/Costs

– While these tasks could be performed by CU staff, some departments may opt for Luna Insight to initially provide them with:

• Customization of metadata fields

(to accommodate previous collections or to serve unique departmental needs)

• Migration of existing collections

(includes text records and digital images)

Implementation Management Models

• A common software platform still allows for multiple servers / multiple implementations

• Two choices for implementation models:– Individual Department manages Insight

implementation (server + license)– Multiple Departments share an Insight

implementation (server + license)

• New CU partners can join in phases

Shared Insight Implementation(example: UCD College of Architecture and PlanningUCB Department of Art and Art HistoryUCD College of Arts and Media)

Individual Departmental Insight Implementation(example:UCB Libraries)

UCCS

UCDHSC

UCB

Students, Faculty, and Staff of CU system

Server Configuration Models

• Modular system can be implemented several different ways– Scenario 1: One Departmental Implementation

• Single server• MySQL (database)• Start-up costs for hardware and database: $10,000-$15,000• Ongoing support, maintenance, and hardware replacement:

$3,000– Scenario 2: Shared Departmental Implementation

• Multiple Servers• Oracle (database)• Start-up costs for hardware and database: $60,000• Ongoing support, maintenance, and hardware replacement:

$20,000

Conclusions

• Subscription to ARTstor and Purchase of Luna Insight

• Timeline considerations– Financial incentives to act now

• Luna purchase agreement needs to be reached by March 31 to take advantage of discounted price

• ARTstor offered a 15% discount on the archive capital fee through 12-31-04. Because we initiated this process last year, we may still be able to negotiate for the discount.

– Several departments eager to begin before end of ’05 fiscal year (resources available + immediate need)

What’s Next?If steering committee approves ARTstor and Luna Insight, we

will need to:• Identify participants in phase I• Finalize budget figures for implementation• Select system architecture (hardware + database)• Create a training plan (collection managers, system

administrators, end users)• Write policies (copyright, metadata, digitization)• Address classroom support issues (digital equipment +

technical support)