Digital Here Now,Digital Here Now, Maybe Forever? Maybe Forever?

Collecting and CollaborationsCollecting and Collaborations

Robert P. SpindlerRobert P. SpindlerNew England Archivists Fall MeetingNew England Archivists Fall Meeting

Storrs, ConnecticutStorrs, ConnecticutOctober 12, 2007October 12, 2007

Archivists and CollaborationArchivists and Collaboration

Why can’t we go it alone?Why can’t we go it alone?

Creators and digital obsolescenceCreators and digital obsolescence

Lack of Lack of professionally managedprofessionally managed infrastructure infrastructure

Need for specialized technology expertiseNeed for specialized technology expertise

Need for authority/executive champion(s)Need for authority/executive champion(s)

Archivists and CollaborationArchivists and Collaboration

The Plan The Plan (for the next 40 mins. or so):(for the next 40 mins. or so):

Collaboration with creatorsCollaboration with creators What should we say to them?What should we say to them? What motivates them?What motivates them?

Quick university case studiesQuick university case studies Enterprise systemsEnterprise systems Learning management systemsLearning management systems Electronic theses and dissertationsElectronic theses and dissertations

Lessons LearnedLessons Learned

Archivists and CreatorsArchivists and Creators

What should we discuss with them?What should we discuss with them?

Articulate the digital preservation challengeArticulate the digital preservation challenge

Identify sustainable formats – run with pack!Identify sustainable formats – run with pack!

Discuss production workflowDiscuss production workflow

Documentation of ownership (collaborations)Documentation of ownership (collaborations)

Transfer to archival system/reliable infrastructureTransfer to archival system/reliable infrastructure

Archivists and CollaborationArchivists and Collaboration

Creators are motivated by different things:Creators are motivated by different things:

Enterprise system content owners are Enterprise system content owners are business/transaction drivenbusiness/transaction driven

Faculty are interested in tenure and timeFaculty are interested in tenure and time

Students are motivated by program Students are motivated by program requirementsrequirements

How can we speak to How can we speak to theirtheir needs? needs?

Case Study: Enterprise Student Case Study: Enterprise Student Information System (2006-07)Information System (2006-07)

New SIS to be implemented in 18 monthsNew SIS to be implemented in 18 months

Student transcripts are vital recordsStudent transcripts are vital records

Archivist comments to CIO’s WikiArchivist comments to CIO’s Wiki

Registrar is supportive but not committedRegistrar is supportive but not committed PESC XML Standard PESC XML Standard

http://www.pesc.org/info/approved/xml-post-transcript.asphttp://www.pesc.org/info/approved/xml-post-transcript.asp

Meeting with project co-leadersMeeting with project co-leaders

Case Study: Enterprise Student Case Study: Enterprise Student Information System (2007)Information System (2007)

Case Study: Learning Management Case Study: Learning Management Systems (2003)Systems (2003)

General Counsel called committee with reps General Counsel called committee with reps from:from: FacultyFaculty University ITUniversity IT University ArchivesUniversity Archives

Case Study: Learning Management Case Study: Learning Management Systems (2003)Systems (2003)

Counsel interested in rights management, privacy and Counsel interested in rights management, privacy and public records compliancepublic records compliance

University IT interested in deleting obsolete files and University IT interested in deleting obsolete files and avoiding migration costsavoiding migration costs

University Archives interested in preserving sample University Archives interested in preserving sample courses for pedagogy and historycourses for pedagogy and history

Faculty wants to keep everythingFaculty wants to keep everything

Case Study: Learning Management Case Study: Learning Management Systems (2003)Systems (2003)

Group identified course components and Group identified course components and content lifespan through a flow chartcontent lifespan through a flow chart

Taxonomy of course components drafted with Taxonomy of course components drafted with proposed retention periods for eachproposed retention periods for each

Determine responsibility for Content (faculty,

department, etc.) – identify “owner” Determine responsibility for Hosting “bits”

(college, IT, DLT, etc.) Determine re-use schedule/determine reuse

status (is the course to be re-offered) Add metadata to course record and send to

temporary storage facility (along with permissions documentation and collateral information)

Move to temporary storage

Inactive Course/Content Store in temporary review facility (Duration?) Retained in LMS software Content “Owner” selects reuseable

course/content Archivist selects archival course/content Update course record

Non-reuseable/non-archival Hold in temporary queue for

destruction IT deletes on schedule Gradebooks retained one year

after Fall Semester of academic year last offered

Balance of course deleted 3 years from Fall Semester of academic year last offered

Archival course/content Migrate to archival non-

Blackboard format TBA Strip gradebooks Move to long term storage Update course record

Reuseable Course/Content migrated to new/current

LMS software if necessary to re-offer

Maintenance, quality control

Description and access to integrate into permanent

collection

Active Course

Faculty Personal Copy Migrate to non-

Blackboard format TBA Store on Local hard

drive/CD/DVD Strip student ID#’s from

gradebook Licensed content flagged

and/or stripped

Record Series Default Retention Format/Notes Syllabus 3 yrs after fall

semester last offered Selective archival retention: Word/Text

Grade Book 1 yr. after FY offered Grade appeal policy. FERPA Exam Questions/Key 1 yr. after FY offered Grade appeal policy Completed Exams 1 yr. after FY offered If not returned to student FERPA Lecture Content 3 yrs. After fall

semester offered Selective archival retention: Word/Text

Assignments 1 yr. after FY offered Grade appeal policy FERPA Required Course Readings (and links to) Dependent on licensing Discussion Boards/Email: Class section 1 yr. after FY offered Grade appeal policy. FERPA? Work Group 1 yr. after FY offered Grade appeal policy. FERPA? Chat 1 yr. after FY offered Grade appeal policy. FERPA? Bibliographies/References/Links 3 yrs. after fall

semester last offered

Video Clips Evaluate annually, licensing? Audio Clips Evaluate annually, licensing? Announcements 0 Delete at end of semester Student Portfolio perm Class Attendance Records 1 yr. after FY offered Grade appeal policy FERPA Class Schedule 0 Delete at end of semester System Access Records (Virtual Attendance) 1 yr. after FY offered Grade appeal policy FERPA Links with Student Information System Records 0 Delete after data transfer to SIS at end of

semester? DRAFT Taxonomy of potential record series within a specific online course offering with possible disposition, policy and legal jurisdictions. Rob Spindler, Arizona State University, 12/2/2003

Case Study: Learning Management Case Study: Learning Management Systems (2003)Systems (2003)

Group disbanded in Spring 2004Group disbanded in Spring 2004

Faculty could not see the justification for Faculty could not see the justification for deletion of anythingdeletion of anything

Case Study: ASU Electronic Theses and Case Study: ASU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Working Group (2001)Dissertations Working Group (2001)

22 faculty, librarians, IT staff, Graduate College 22 faculty, librarians, IT staff, Graduate College administrators, + one archivist.administrators, + one archivist.

Proposed:Proposed: PDF requirement and optional multimediaPDF requirement and optional multimedia Student self-submission processStudent self-submission process Multimedia format standardsMultimedia format standards Funding for IT and Graduate College staffFunding for IT and Graduate College staff

Case Study: ASU Electronic Theses and Case Study: ASU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Working Group (2001)Dissertations Working Group (2001)

TTechnologyechnology staff staff (University and Library): (University and Library): Builds submission interfaceBuilds submission interface Maintains storage environmentMaintains storage environment RResearchesearcheses migration paths and test migration paths and testss migrations migrations

Librarians review and enhance author-provided Librarians review and enhance author-provided metadatametadata

Archivists evaluate preservation and recordkeeping Archivists evaluate preservation and recordkeeping requirementsrequirements

Case Study: ASU Electronic Theses and Case Study: ASU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Working Group (2001)Dissertations Working Group (2001)

Standards committee receiveStandards committee receivess format standards format standards proposals from students via GC advisorsproposals from students via GC advisors

Center for Learning and Teaching Excellence to Center for Learning and Teaching Excellence to provide student trainingprovide student training

University was unable or unwilling to support the University was unable or unwilling to support the true coststrue costs

Conclusion: Lesson LearnedConclusion: Lesson Learned

All of these initiatives failed!All of these initiatives failed!

We have a responsibility to keep tryingWe have a responsibility to keep trying

Be strategic – pick your spotsBe strategic – pick your spots

Executive champions are the key:Executive champions are the key: ProvostsProvosts CounselCounsel AuditorsAuditors CIOs and Library DeansCIOs and Library Deans

Thanks!Thanks!

Digital Here Now,Digital Here Now, Maybe Forever? Maybe Forever?

Collecting and Collaborations Collecting and Collaborations

Robert P. SpindlerRobert P. SpindlerNew England Archivists Fall MeetingNew England Archivists Fall Meeting

Storrs, ConnecticutStorrs, ConnecticutOctober 12, 2007October 12, 2007