Institutional Repository Exploratory Committee update August 31, 2011

1. INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY
EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE
UPDATE
Mott Community College August 31, 2011

2. What is IREC?
 Institutional Repository Exploratory Committee
 Goals:
 Research concept of institutional repositories
 Prepare proposal for Dr. Fugate

3. IREC Committee Members
Kathy Irwin, Chair Director of Library Services
Mary Cusack Dean of Fine Arts & Social Sciences Division
Johanna Brown Dean of Science & Math Division
Bob Rentschler Faculty
Sheila Swyrtek Faculty
Aaron Gulyas Faculty
Dolores Sharpe Executive Director - Academic Operations
Margaret Bourcier Manager, e-Learning, FS And Web
Development
Marc Smith Manager of Computing Services
Mike Ugorowski Coordinator of Public Services – Library
Rebecca Gale-Gonzalez Marketing Assistant - Public
Information

4. What is an institutional repository?
 An institutional repository is an online storage,
retrieval, and preservation system of digital
collections and content created by faculty, staff, and
students at a given institution.
 Key elements:
 Long-term preservation
 Locally created and unique content
 Easy access

5. How is it different?
 Does not replace
 our website
 our course management system
 any other existing system
 The focus is content
 Collecting,preserving, accessing
 Locally created
 Enduring value

6. Vision for our institutional repository
 Mott Community College’s Institutional Repository
will be an easily accessible showcase of the
pedagogical, intellectual, and creative output of
our institution’s faculty, staff and students.

7. What might be included?
 College historical documents and photographs
 Gordon LaVere’s photographs
 Geology Museum collection photographs
 Audio files of sit down strikes
 Course syllabi, course outcomes
 Sabbatical projects
 Faculty publications
 Student awards and portfolios
 Ballenger Lecture Series videos, audios, PR materials

8. Why might we want one?
 Unique, locally created content
 Not restrained by copyright issues
 Not purchased
 Share best practices
 Spur innovation
 Alternate form of publishing
 Students and faculty can store and provide access to
their intellectual and creative output to a worldwide
audience.
 Evolving scholarly publishing model

9. Why might we want one?
 Give back to the community
 Will show the community in part how their investment
has created unique pedagogical, intellectual and
creative output.
 Institutional visibility and prestige
 Will showcase MCC’s pedagogical, intellectual and
creative output.
 Will make accessible valuable information that is
currently hidden on network drives or only in print
format.
 Will enable Google and other search engines to find
MCC content (such as faculty and student portfolios)

10. IREC Timeline
May-July 2011 Research and discuss institutional repository concept,
begin drafting recommendation
August 2011 Host demos of institutional repositories implemented
by Michigan universities
September / Review and assess demos, finish drafting
October 2011 recommendation
November 2011 Present recommendation to Dr. Fugate
December 2011 Further steps to be determined

11. Demos
 Central Michigan University
 ContentDM, CONDOR
 Ruth Helwig, Systems Librarian
 Wayne State University
 Digital Commons, Digital Commons @ Wayne State
University
 Jonathan McGlone, Librarian, New Media and Information
Technology
 University of Michigan
 DSpace, Deep Blue
 Jim Ottaviani, Librarian, Deep Blue Coordinator

12. Demos
• Purpose of institutional repository, why implemented
• Why selected particular software system
• Implementation process
• Policies and procedures
• Who manages the system, different roles
• How they determined collections and contributors
• Benefits realized
• Obstacles experienced, lessons learned

13. Sample institutional repository
collections
 Student art collection
 Literary magazine
 Faculty publication
 Oral history project
 Conference papers

14. Stakeholders
 College administration
 Faculty
 Library
 ITS
 Departmental leaders and college staff
 CTL
 Students

15. Stakeholders
 Implementing and managing an institutional
repository is a collaborative process
 Centralize technical support and training (Library
and ITS)
 Oversight committee (cross-campus representation)
 Individual departments take ownership and
responsibility of the collections they create

16. Costs
 Software platforms
 Commercial products – ContentDM or Digital Commons
 Open source products – DSpace
 IT infrastructure and maintenance
 Commercial products – little to no local resources needed
 Open source products – server space for software and file
storage
 Equipment
 Staff time
 Largest cost
 More staff intensive during implementation and pilot phase
 Most institutions utilize 0.50 FTE

17. Resources
 EDUCAUSE whitepaper, Institutional respositories:
enhancing teaching, learning, and research
 Mott Library LibGuide on Institutional Repositories

18. INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY
EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE
UPDATE
Mott Community College August 31, 2011