Date post: | 28-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | felix-bryan |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Institutional Repositories
The invisible & unwritten rules of Project Management in ETD
Collection Building
PM Life Cycle according to the textbook
• Feasibility study
• Business analysis
• Planning, designing & resourcing
• Execution
• Implementation
• Close out
PMthe real-world perspective
Core elements
Scope
Time
Cost
Quality
Means to achieve
Integration
People
Communication
Risk
Project Risk Managementrisk areas
• Human Resources management
• QA
• Collections
• Equipment & IT
• Internet access
• Scheduling & rate of production
Project Management and people
Textbook
Staff acquisitions
Team development
What happens
Urgent vs important
University calendar
Training & retraining
Quality Assurance
Metadata
Developing guidelines
Developing subject thesauri
Training
Peer review
Digital files
Agreeing an accepted standard
Random sampling of pages, graphs, appendices
Integrity of digital file with print version
Front & content pages
Collections
• Agree scope of collection & timelines
• Integrate workflow across:
student & supervisor
Dean & Faculty
Registrar & bureaucracy
Library & internal processes
Internet access
• Webpage development
• Skills & training • Dependence on NRF
• Protection of content • Managed access • Copyright issues
Rate of production
• Project host (NRF/CHELSA) expectations
• Unrealistic target setting
• Misjudged scheduling
• Metadata production dependent on digital file production (Greenstone; D Space?)
• Impact on staff morale
• Impact on project progress
Monitoring production
• Spreadsheets to monitor
• Set targets (realistic ones)
individuals
weekly totals
• Weekly production meetings
Lessons learned6 phases of a project
• Enthusiasm
• Disillusionment
• Panic
• Search for the guilty
• Punishment of the innocent
• Praise & honours for the non-participants
Lessons learned on the ground
• Allocate time for initial team training• Digitisation projects are about managing
production lines • Pressured environment driven by budgets &
timelines • Direct correlation between high output and team
size• Anticipate varying capacity levels across team• Not to be bolted onto existing workload of staff
members
In conclusionChallenges
• Team development is time-consuming & demanding
• Role boundaries must be clear
• Anticipate problems
• Manage change
• Don’t become dependent on 2-3 key people
Current dilemma
• IRs are innovative but often marginalised technologies
• Difficult to demonstrate impact on the research enterprise of the university
• University Administrators doubt the “institutional good” without demonstrable evidence
• No consensus on agreed set of Performance Indicators (PI) or metrics
ReRR launched for the right reasons in 2006
• Enhanced visibility of research outputs • Increased dissemination of institutional
scholarship• Preservation & long-term access to
institutional scholarship• Opportunity to educate faculty &
researchers about ©, open access publishing
ReRR – innovation caught between a rock…
• Within RU viewed as a library activity & resource
• Reliance on quantitative PIs to demonstrate benefit
• Open access publishing is not without costs
• Few libraries have dedicated budgets for IR operating costs
…and a hard place
• High usage evidence suggests IRs part of the “research good” – not recognised by University Administrators
• Research policy & decision makers unconvinced that IR is a strategic research tool
• Low awareness among Faculty & few incentives to use open access publishing
• Reliance on non-strategic PIs to evaluate
Quantitative PIs used to evaluate IR services
• Gross number of items as well as retrieval using hits & downloads
• Levels of active community engagement (gappy vs continuous)
• Time-increment measures vs one-time only counts
• Content material types (proportion of pre-print or post-print items)
Qualitative PIs used to evaluate impact
• Fit between IR, organisational infrastructure (policy, culture, goals) & technical infrastructure
• Levels of flexibility & interoperability (end-user, system & services)
• Non-use by research community to deposit content
• Quality & extent of participation levels ie content building & usage
Assessing the “fit” between innovation & institution
• Continuum consists of inputs, outputs & outcomes (content, services & systems)
• Gather evidence iro workflow efficiencies associated with the innovation (quantitative)
• Gather evidence that demonstrates the extent to which the IR has an effect on the individual /collective research community (qualitative)
IR evaluation: distinguish between your goals
• Significant PIs – mainly qualitative measures to gather evidence of impact on the research enterprise at end-user, institutional & national level
• Secondary level PIs – mainly quantitative measures that demonstrate efficiencies & effectiveness
ReRR – Performance Indicator framework
Inputs
(Content)
Outputs
(Services & Systems)
Impact
(Benefit)
End-user quantitative More quantitative
qualitative
Research community:institutional
quantitative More quantitative
qualitative
Research community:national
quantitative More quantitative
qualitative
Significant PIs should show University Administrators…
• Whether the IR is working according to plan • Can the IR work better and for what purpose• Are there lessons from current initiatives that
need to be heeded • What has emerged as important • Is there a significant impact on the individual or
collective research community • What is its potential to strengthen, improve &
raise the visibility of the individual or collective research community