Digital Here Now,
Maybe Forever?
Collecting and Collaborations
Robert P. Spindler
New England Archivists Fall Meeting
Storrs, Connecticut
October 12, 2007
Archivists and Collaboration

Why can’t we go it alone?

Creators and digital obsolescence

Lack of professionally managed infrastructure

Need for specialized technology expertise

Need for authority/executive champion(s)
Archivists and Collaboration

The Plan (for the next 40 mins. or so):

Collaboration with creators



Quick university case studies




What should we say to them?
What motivates them?
Enterprise systems
Learning management systems
Electronic theses and dissertations
Lessons Learned
Archivists and Creators

What should we discuss with them?

Articulate the digital preservation challenge

Identify sustainable formats – run with pack!

Discuss production workflow

Documentation of ownership (collaborations)

Transfer to archival system/reliable infrastructure
Archivists and Collaboration


Creators are motivated by different things:

Enterprise system content owners are
business/transaction driven

Faculty are interested in tenure and time

Students are motivated by program
requirements
How can we speak to their needs?
Case Study: Enterprise Student
Information System (2006-07)

New SIS to be implemented in 18 months

Student transcripts are vital records

Archivist comments to CIO’s Wiki

Registrar is supportive but not committed

PESC XML Standard
http://www.pesc.org/info/approved/xml-post-transcript.asp

Meeting with project co-leaders
Case Study: Enterprise Student
Information System (2007)
Case Study: Learning Management
Systems (2003)

General Counsel called committee with reps
from:



Faculty
University IT
University Archives
Case Study: Learning Management
Systems (2003)

Counsel interested in rights management, privacy and
public records compliance

University IT interested in deleting obsolete files and
avoiding migration costs

University Archives interested in preserving sample
courses for pedagogy and history

Faculty wants to keep everything
Case Study: Learning Management
Systems (2003)

Group identified course components and
content lifespan through a flow chart

Taxonomy of course components drafted with
proposed retention periods for each
Active Course





Reuseable Course/Content
migrated to new/current
LMS software if necessary
to re-offer






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
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
Faculty Personal Copy
Migrate to nonBlackboard format TBA
 Store on Local hard
drive/CD/DVD
 Strip student ID#’s from
gradebook
 Licensed content flagged
and/or stripped






Archival course/content
Migrate to archival nonBlackboard format TBA
Strip gradebooks
Move to long term storage
Update course record
Maintenance, quality control
Description and access to
integrate into permanent
collection
Record Series
Syllabus
Grade Book
Exam Questions/Key
Completed Exams
Lecture Content
Assignments
Required Course Readings (and links to)
Discussion Boards/Email:
Class section
Work Group
Chat
Bibliographies/References/Links
Video Clips
Audio Clips
Announcements
Student Portfolio
Class Attendance Records
Class Schedule
System Access Records (Virtual Attendance)
Links with Student Information System Records
Default Retention
3 yrs after fall
semester last offered
1 yr. after FY offered
1 yr. after FY offered
1 yr. after FY offered
3 yrs. After fall
semester offered
1 yr. after FY offered
Format/Notes
Selective archival retention: Word/Text
1 yr. after FY offered
1 yr. after FY offered
1 yr. after FY offered
3 yrs. after fall
semester last offered
Grade appeal policy. FERPA?
Grade appeal policy. FERPA?
Grade appeal policy. FERPA?
0
perm
1 yr. after FY offered
0
1 yr. after FY offered
0
Grade appeal policy. FERPA
Grade appeal policy
If not returned to student FERPA
Selective archival retention: Word/Text
Grade appeal policy FERPA
Dependent on licensing
Evaluate annually, licensing?
Evaluate annually, licensing?
Delete at end of semester
Grade appeal policy FERPA
Delete at end of semester
Grade appeal policy FERPA
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
Systems (2003)

Group disbanded in Spring 2004

Faculty could not see the justification for
deletion of anything
Case Study: ASU Electronic Theses and
Dissertations Working Group (2001)


22 faculty, librarians, IT staff, Graduate College
administrators, + one archivist.
Proposed:




PDF requirement and optional multimedia
Student self-submission process
Multimedia format standards
Funding for IT and Graduate College staff
Case Study: ASU Electronic Theses and
Dissertations Working Group (2001)

Technology staff (University and Library):



Builds submission interface
Maintains storage environment
Researches migration paths and tests migrations

Librarians review and enhance author-provided
metadata

Archivists evaluate preservation and recordkeeping
requirements
Case Study: ASU Electronic Theses and
Dissertations Working Group (2001)

Standards committee receives format standards
proposals from students via GC advisors

Center for Learning and Teaching Excellence to
provide student training

University was unable or unwilling to support the true
costs
Conclusion: Lesson Learned

All of these initiatives failed!

We have a responsibility to keep trying

Be strategic – pick your spots

Executive champions are the key:




Provosts
Counsel
Auditors
CIOs and Library Deans
Thanks!
Digital Here Now,
Maybe Forever?
Collecting and Collaborations
Robert P. Spindler
New England Archivists Fall Meeting
Storrs, Connecticut
October 12, 2007