The Minnesota Digital Library (MDL) seeks to explore a common infrastructure strategy that will bring the state a significantly enhanced capacity for preserving and accessing its cultural heritage. The MDL perceives opportunity and the wisdom in providing large-scale digital content repository services for Minnesota, and considers establishing a shared digital preservation service as a valuable first step. Last year the MDL hired me to facilitate the production of a report on the image preservation needs and an prototype of a HathiTrust-based preservation system. This winter and spring MDL would like to evaluate the lessons of that prototype against other preservation options so that it can determine which path would serve its digital preservation needs best by summer 2011.

This proposal outlines a process for conducting this evaluation and includes an option for exploring one or two other preservation alternatives before making the a call of which path to pursue. Note that in addition to my time, launching some evaluation efforts with one or two vendors will likely require Jason Roy’s participation plus at least one other staff person from his shop during the March to April timeframe.

For the purposes of this document, the project sponsors will be considered to be John Butler (UMN), Bob Horton (MHS), and Bill DeJohn (Minitex).

Building an evaluation tool

Hold a meeting of sponsors and any staff they wish to include to consider attributes by which we can evaluate potential solutions and the relative weights of these attributes. Identify which attributes are actually requirements for MDL, and under what circumstance those requirements might be waived. We would both build this evaluation matrix and come up with initial values for the HathiTrust prototype. This work would take place during the first half of February. We would also try to include Katherine Skinner, which may add some expense beyond what I have identified in this proposal.

This evaluation tool would include attributes along a variety of dimensions including: fitness for purpose, access and preservation, economics, and strategy and positioning.

Deliverable 1: Facilitation of meeting.

Cost: $1,200

Prepare a website that documents the matrix, completes it with regard to HT, and is suitable for evaluating alternative solutions. This would be complete by one week following the meeting.

Deliverable 2: Documentation of the matrix.

Cost: $800

Exploring alternatives

Evaluate the alternatives listed in the prototype report against the criteria defined in our evaluation matrix to provide an initial sense of their likely fit. This should be finished by the end of February.

Deliverable 3: Preliminary evaluation of alternatives.

Cost: $2,400

In depth exploration of one or two alternatives through a trial load of data generated during the MDL-HT prototype project. Develop the workflow move data from Minnesota into the alternative systems, demonstrate that workflow by moving a defined set of images into those systems, and work with the vendors of those systems to test retrieval from them as well. I expect to devote 25% of my time to the project during this phase, meet weekly with Jason and other staff involved in the transfer, and stay in close contact with the vendors. I would also be consulting the sponsors as needed. If the sponsors wish, we can also have a monthly phone meeting to keep everyone updated on progress. This should be complete by the end of April.

Deliverable 4: Sample transfers to up to two alternative systems.

Cost: $12,000

A brief report of lessons learned from working with alternative systems would be prepared. Complete by mid-May.

Deliverable 5: Report of lessons learned.

Cost: $1,800

The evaluation matrix would be altered to the extent appropriate to reflect the lessons learned. Complete by mid-May.

Deliverable 6: Revised evaluation matrix.

Cost: $900

Final evaluations

Hold a meeting of sponsors and any staff they wish to include to evaluate alternative systems. We would revisit the HT evaluation in the revised matrix and add final evaluation numbers for alternatives (both tested and untested). Help the group come to a consensus about the most appropriate direction for further preservation efforts. This meeting would take place during the first half of June. We would also try to include Katherine Skinner, which may add some expense beyond what I have identified in this proposal.

Deliverable 7: Final evaluation matrix and recommendation.

Cost: $1,200

A brief report of the results of the evaluation including a presentation of the evaluation matrix suitable for sharing would be prepared by the end of June.

Deliverable 8: Final report.

Cost: $1,500

Optional Opportunity

I believe the CNI Spring Task Force meeting is ideally suited to sharing our progress with peers around the country. We can share the prototype report and present a panel that includes MDL, HT, and possibly Katherine as well as myself. The feedback and discussion at such a project briefing might also give us leads about alternative approaches worth considering.

Deliverable 9: Attendance at CNI Spring 2011 Task Force meeting

Cost: $1,200 + travel expenses

Scope

The thrust of this effort is broadening the preservation solutions which MDL evaluates, not deepening our reach into Minnesota digital collections to be preserved. We will only seek to preserve a sample of the data used during the MDL-HT work, not develop new sources of master images. This project also makes no effort to resolve the governance issues facing the preservation effort at MDL.

Timeline

Work would start immediately upon receipt of a Minitex contract and conclude in June 2011.

Cost

As a consultant, I do not charge by the hour. The services above will cost $23,000. I will submit an invoice for $2,000 at the end of February 2011, for $5,000 at the end of March and April, for $7,100 at the end of May, and for $2,700 by the end of June 2011. If the optional CNI trip is approved, it would be billed as an addition to the April invoice. Any travel outside the Twin Cities that required for this work would be covered at typical University of Minnesota reimbursement rates and billed separately. Any expenses for facilities and travel for other participants in face to face meetings are also not included.

Note that Katherine Skinner would also be a valuable participant in our meetings and would likely be available in these timeframes. She has indicated that an additional $900 would cover her costs and she will contact Bill separately to arrange a contract.

/MDL/ImagePreservationOptions/