DOC

Management of UC Information Assets Structural Outline

By Ryan Rogers,2014-08-29 05:28
13 views 0
Management of UC Information Assets Structural Outline

    Management of UC Digital Scholarly Information Assets

    Initial Inquiry

    Program Components

Objective: Develop an institutional discussion and planning framework for addressing issues and institutional options involved in a

    Universitywide (ten campus) program to capture and manage UC’s digital scholarly information assets, incorporating consideration of the

    responsibilities of various UC constituencies in their roles as authors/compilers, users, and stewards of this content at various stages in its life-cycle.

Initial program components:

    ; Characterizing wants and needs. Provide a characterization of the various kinds of content produced by faculty, students and staff in

    digital form; the purposes for its production and its potential uses; the provenances of its production; and the expectations of creators

    and users for its persistence, management, and access. Methods may include interviews/focus groups with faculty (and other key

    constituencies if justified), and consultation with representatives of administrative constituencies (e.g., research administration, CIOs,

    records managers). Current planning is focused on faculty interviews/focus groups. ; Estimating quantities and types of digital information assets. Develop initial estimates of the quantities and types of digital

    information that might be captured in a systemwide program. Methods may include general and/or targeted Web crawls of UC

    domains (“Web demographics”), “desk audits” of faculty and research group computers and servers (likely coordinated with faculty

    interviews/focus groups) and focused exploration of the digital asset holdings of key UC locations, such as selected MRUs and ORUs

    (through Web site review, interviews, and other means). Targets could be identified through a combination of (a) tacit knowledge and

    consultation with campus sources, (b) systematic sampling of a list of campus and multi-campus research units, (c) identification of

    data-intensive research projects (through review of the UC Contracts and Grants database, consultation with major granting agencies

    such as NIH and NSF, etc.), and (d) other methods. Current planning is focused on a Web crawl of UC domains.

    ; Exploring institutional strategies and solutions. Identify peer institutions and organizations whose experience can provide useful

    guidance for planning a UC systemwide program. The primary method is consultation with leading centers and programs, nationally

    and internationally, to improve understanding of institutional issues (financial, programmatic, political…) and identify useful

    strategies, tactics and practices that should be considered in UC’s planning.

Project team:

    ; Gary Lawrence, Director, Systemwide Library Planning (gary.lawrence@ucop.edu, 510.987.9461) (Project coordinator) ; Patricia Cruse, Director, Digital Preservation, California Digital Library (patricia.cruse@ucop.edu, 510.987.9016)

    ; Joanne Miller, Project Analyst, Systemwide Library Planning (joanne.miller@ucop.edu, 510.587.6141)

    ; John Ober, Director, Policy, Planning and Outreach, Office of Scholarly Communication (john.ober@ucop.edu, 510.987.0174) ; Felicia Poe, Assessment Coordinator, California Digital Library (felicia.poe@ucop.edu, 510.987.9246)

    ; Abby Smith, Independent Consultant (asmith@abbysmith.net, 415.831.4439)

Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:35:08 -0700

    To: wartella@admin.ucr.edu

    From: "M.R.C. Greenwood" <MRC.Greenwood@ucop.edu>

August 19, 2005

EXECUTIVE VICE CHANCELLOR WARTELLA

Dear Ellen:

Past-Chair Gottfredson's letter of April 7, 2005 conveyed the Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee

    (SLASIAC) Resolution I on the University's Role in Fostering Positive Change in Scholarly Communication. His letter and the resolution

    itself describe well the mission critical nature of UC's engagement in and influence on scholarly communication and publishing systems.

    Mike effectively characterized the dual challenges of maintaining UC's access to scholarly materials while also ensuring that UC's

    scholarship can reach its full impact through wide availability to others.

The resolution highlights the wide range of UC constituencies who are already engaged in scholarly communication issues, including the

    faculty, the libraries, and UC Press. SLASIAC is in a unique position to work closely with all these constituencies to define strategies, coordinate responses, and foster effective communication within UC, nationally and internationally. I wholeheartedly endorse the

    committee's commitment to "identify key strategies and implementation paths for the university to examine and discuss, and suggest

    actions that exploit opportunities for positive change" and its plans to continue to encourage, coordinate and facilitate the related initiatives of the UC community.

    In addition, I would like to ask SLASIAC to take a leadership position in addressing one issue set out in Mike's letter that calls for urgent systemwide attention: "capturing and managing UC's vital scholarly information assets." The digital products of scholarship rapidly are

    Systemwide Library Planning 1

     G:\projects\dig_stewardship\project_materials\dig-stewardship_CNI_handout.doc Last Saved: November 7, 2005

    becoming more numerous and more diverse, and represent an increasingly massive investment by faculty, the University, and funding agencies. Yet these assets generally remain unaccounted and unmanaged. Strategies and services that deal with this problem will, as Mike's letter points out, provide essential support for UC's scholarly communication initiatives, but also help the University to address the broader issues. It is critically important that our approach to these issues effectively addresses academic needs and both informs and is aligned with Universitywide and campus IT strategies and system capabilities. The broad representation of key UC constituencies on SLASIAC, including faculty, libraries, and information technology leadership, suggests that the committee is well positioned to begin exploring these questions, in coordination with the proposed UC Information Technology Guidance Council.

    I therefore ask SLASIAC to undertake a systematic investigation of the issues and institutional options involved in a systemwide program to capture and manage its digital scholarly information assets. I have asked Associate Vice Provost Greenstein and his staff to prepare the attached white paper, which sets out some of the issues that the Committee should consider in its inquiry.

    SLASIAC has continually demonstrated its ability to provide effective leadership and advice on academic information and scholarly communication issues, and I look forward to your guidance and support as we begin to further frame and evolve the scholarly information environment that we need at UC.

Sincerely,

M.R.C. Greenwood

    Provost and Senior Vice President

    Academic Affairs

Enclosures

cc: SLASIAC members

     SLASIAC Past Chair Gottfredson

C:\Eudora\Attachments\IAM_key_issues11.doc IAM_key_issues11.doc

    KEY ISSUES IN PLANNING FOR EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF UC’S DIGITAL ACADEMIC INFORMATION ASSETS The digital products of scholarship rapidly are becoming more numerous and more diverse, and represent an increasingly massive investment by faculty, the University, and funding agencies. Yet these assets generally remain unaccounted and unmanaged. An investigation of the issues and institutional options involved in a systemwide program to capture and manage UC’s digital scholarly information assets should comprehend: the various kinds of content produced by faculty, students and staff in digital form, the purposes for its production and its potential uses, the provenances of its production (e.g., whether sponsored research, instructional materials, etc.) and their implications, the economic and scholarly value of this content, and the risks to which UC might be exposed if it fails to effectively account for and manage these resources, and the major technological, administrative and political/policy issues, including privacy, copyright, and other restrictions, that might be entailed in a comprehensive UC strategy. Among the specific issues that should be addressed are: Means of effectively asserting the faculty’s rights in their published works, including as necessary: o Issues in copyright law and policy o Administrative and technical mechanisms for capturing and managing published works Issues related to the capture and persistent management of research data (for example, as called for in the National Science Board report) and its linkage to publications and classroom applications Consideration of the funding system for extramurally-sponsored research, including indirect costs, in relation to the institutional systems and services needed for the stewardship of the digital information produced by and supporting that research. A planning framework for addressing these issues should incorporate consideration of the responsibilities of various UC constituencies in their roles as authors/compilers, users, and stewards of this content at various stages in its life-cycle, including but not limited to: faculty academic administrators libraries information technology services Relevant recent discussions of the issues related to the capture, management and stewardship of various forms of digital information produced by higher education institutions and essential to their teaching and research programs include The NIH Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research, which requests the authors of published papers reporting NIH-supported research to deposit copies of their final manuscripts in the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central repository. The proposal from the Academic Council to the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine’s Independent Citizens Oversight Committee for a Policy on Public Access and Archiving of Research Results for research supported by the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Bond Act of 2004. st The draft report of the National Science Board on Long-Lived Digital Data Collections: Enabling Research and Education in the 21 Century.

    Systemwide Library Planning 2

     G:\projects\dig_stewardship\project_materials\dig-stewardship_CNI_handout.doc Last Saved: November 7, 2005

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com