#AnswerBarResponse%
4Yes, we have a current need
7
26.92%
1Yes, we have a prospective need
10
38.46%
2No, (explain why)
2
7.69%
3I can't answer this question.
7
26.92%
Total
26
100.00%
Min ValueMax ValueAverage ValueVarianceStandard DeviationTotal ResponsesTotal Respondents
1
4
2.42
1.61
1.27
26
26
Is your institution interested in participating in a collaborative institutional repository system?
#QuestionCurrently archiving physicalCurrently archiving digitalWould like to archive physicalWould like to archive digitalResponseAverage Value
1Books written by Faculty
19
1
4
11
35
2.20
2Books written by Students
12
-
3
9
24
2.38
3Books written by other members of the institution
9
-
5
10
24
2.67
4Journal Articles written by Faculty
7
2
1
17
27
3.04
5Journal Articles written by Students
4
2
1
16
23
3.26
6Journal Articles written by other members of the institution
5
1
1
14
21
3.14
7Magazine/Newspapers written by Faculty
3
1
1
14
19
3.37
8Magazine/Newspapers written by Students
3
3
1
14
21
3.24
9Magazine/Newspapers written by other members of the institution
2
1
1
12
16
3.44
10Yearbooks
13
5
2
10
30
2.30
11Presentations made by Faculty
6
1
1
16
24
3.13
12Presentations made by Students
1
1
1
15
18
3.67
13Presentations made by other members of the institution
2
-
1
14
17
3.59
14Dissertations/Theses
11
5
1
12
29
2.48
15Course Content (lectures, syllabi)
4
6
-
11
21
2.86
16Institutional Records (course catalogs, directories, etc.)
15
6
2
13
36
2.36
17Digital Images
6
9
1
13
29
2.72
What kinds of publications are currently archived (saved or published) on your campus or what would you like to see archived (saved or published)?  Check all that apply.
18Images of Historical Documents109213342.5294117647059
19College Publications such as Alumni Magazine
12
6
2
14
34
2.53
20Patents issued to Faculty or the institution
-
-
2
7
9
3.78
21Audio Files
9
2
1
16
28
2.86
22Video Files
10
2
1
16
29
2.79
23Research Data Sets
2
1
-
12
15
3.47
24Institutional Governance Documents (meeting minutes, Trustee Documents)
11
3
2
15
31
2.68
25Other
1
1
-
4
6
3.17
#AnswerBarResponse%
1Yes
6
26.09%
2No
17
73.91%
Total
23
100.00%
Min ValueMax ValueAverage ValueVarianceStandard DeviationTotal ResponsesTotal Respondents
1
2
1.74
0.20
0.45
23
23
Does your institution already have an institutional repository system in place?
Text Entry
dSpace (hosted by Longsight)
Image Now. But just in infancy stage.
Digital Commons via bepress
A program written by a staff member called: CTS Media Server
Image Now
Image Now and ContentDM
StatisticValue
Respondents6
What systems(s) are you using?
Text Entry
Robust hosting with Longsight; dSpace is proven software but requires localization
* Ease of development and maintenance makes it possible for the workflow to be decentralized * Quality service from bepress, especially monthly reports of usage data to individuals * Hosted service from bepress requires little administrative support on our part * Digital Commons uses the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting, which enables our holdings to be easily indexed and harvested by commercial search engines. The intellectual products created by Butler faculty and students are more visible to the online world.
Completely open access. Links metadata and object.
I don't use it much
Projects can be shared and worked on by multiple individuals. Having a web interface for administration.
StatisticValue
Respondents5
What features of your repository do you like?
Text Entry
Needs some technical expertise but still fairly usable out of the box.
The challenges we have are not based on the IR system. They are related more to resource issues to support the IR, such as: * inadequate staffing to move as quickly as we'd like ; * general lack of knowledge about authors' rights and copyright; * need for better channels of communication to faculty and students to develop the IR; * we haven't yet incorporated non-text works into the repository;
High noise to signal ratio; No advanced search; copies of the same item in different formats on separate records. (The audio of a lecture on one record, the text version another and a video on yet another.
The Image Now system is being implemented in stages here on our campus and the library has not yet started using it. institutional records (transcripts, etc.) have first priority. We have not yet been introduced to the system. With ContentDM, we need the ability to lock collections down via LDAP.
StatisticValue
Respondents4
What things about your repository do you *not* like?
AnswerBarResponse%
Budget constraints
17
100%
Staffing limitations
12
71%
Insufficient technological support
11
65%
Currently not an institutional priority
10
59%
Other
1
6%
What impediments have you faced in getting an Institutional Repository in place on your campus? Pick all that apply
StatisticComputer programsVideo files (List a few example file types below)Audio files (List a few example file types below)Other (List a few examples below)I want to be able to upload any type of file.
Min Value
1
1
1
1
1
Max Value
3
4
4
4
4
Mean
2.06
2.84
2.6
1.38
2.83
Variance
0.86
1.92
1.94
1.13
0.97
Standard Deviation
0.93
1.38
1.39
1.06
0.99
Total Responses
16
19
20
8
18
Total Respondents
16
19
20
8
18
#QuestionDon’t KnowNot ImportantWould be niceEssentialResponseAverage Value
1Computer programs
6
3
7
-
16
2.06
2Video files (List a few example file types below)
6
1
2
10
19
2.84
3Audio files (List a few example file types below)
8
-
4
8
20
2.60
4Other (List a few examples below)
7
-
-
1
8
1.38
5I want to be able to upload any type of file.
3
1
10
4
18
2.83
Any system we select will be able to handle standard document and image files,
(Word, TXT, Excel, PDF, HTML, PPT, JPG, TIFF, etc.) and various media and data file formats.
What specific media or other file formats should the system be able to handle?
StatisticUpload multiple files at onceUpload compressed filesBatch import files/objectsBatch import metadataBatch export files/objectsBatch export metadata
Min Value
2
1
1
1
1
1
Max Value
4
4
4
4
4
4
Mean
3.45
3.14
3.5
3.14
3.14
3
Variance
0.45
0.73
0.55
0.98
0.98
1.24
Standard Deviation
0.67
0.85
0.74
0.99
0.99
1.11
Total Responses
22
21
22
22
22
22
Total Respondents
22
21
22
22
22
22
#QuestionDon’t KnowNot ImportantWould be niceEssentialResponseAverage Value
1Upload multiple files at once
-
2
8
12
22
3.45
2Upload compressed files
2
-
12
7
21
3.14
3Batch import files/objects
1
-
8
13
22
3.50
4Batch import metadata
3
-
10
9
22
3.14
5Batch export files/objects
3
-
10
9
22
3.14
6Batch export metadata
4
1
8
9
22
3.00
Content Management
StatisticInstitutional password administrationLDAP capableAbility to create user profiles (assign rights)Ability to edit user profiles (assign rights)Limit access by user profilesLimit access at file/object level
Min Value
1
1
1
1
1
1
Max Value
4
4
4
4
4
4
Mean
3.36
2.71
3.23
3.23
3.38
3.1
Variance
0.91
1.71
0.56
0.56
0.55
1.09
Standard Deviation
0.95
1.31
0.75
0.75
0.74
1.04
Total Responses
22
21
22
22
21
21
Total Respondents
22
21
22
22
21
21
#QuestionDon’t KnowNot ImportantWould be niceEssentialResponseAverage Value
1Institutional password administration
2
1
6
13
22
3.36
2LDAP capable
7
-
6
8
21
2.71
3Ability to create user profiles (assign rights)
1
1
12
8
22
3.23
4Ability to edit user profiles (assign rights)
1
1
12
8
22
3.23
5Limit access by user profiles
1
-
10
10
21
3.38
6Limit access at file/object level
3
1
8
9
21
3.10
User registration, authentication & password administration
StatisticAbility to have multiple collectionsSet different submissions parameters for each collectionHome page for each collection
Min Value
3
3
1
Max Value
4
4
4
Mean
3.81
3.52
3.05
Variance
0.16
0.26
0.58
Standard Deviation
0.4
0.51
0.76
Total Responses
21
21
20
Total Respondents
21
21
20
#QuestionDon’t KnowNot ImportantWould be niceEssentialResponseAverage Value
1Ability to have multiple collections
-
-
4
17
21
3.81
2Set different submissions parameters for each collection
-
-
10
11
21
3.52
3Home page for each collection
1
2
12
5
20
3.05
Content Submission Administration
#QuestionDon’t KnowNot ImportantWould be niceEssentialResponseAverage Value
1Segregated submission workspace (Provides a separate pre‐public workspace that stores incomplete and/or pre‐approval stage content submissions.)
5
1
11
5
22
2.73
2Submission roles
5
-
12
4
21
2.71
3Configurable submission roles within collections
7
1
9
5
22
2.55
4Email notification for submitters
2
2
14
4
22
2.91
5Email notification for content administrators
2
1
14
5
22
3.00
6Personalized system access for registered users
3
3
13
2
21
2.67
7Embargo data for document availability (not available until; expires upon)
3
1
12
6
22
2.95
Submission Workflow
StatisticSegregated submission workspace (Provides a separate pre‐public workspace that stores incomplete and/or pre‐approval stage content submissions.)Submission rolesConfigurable submission roles within collectionsEmail notification for submittersEmail notification for content administratorsPersonalized system access for registered usersEmbargo data for document availability (not available until; expires upon)
Min Value
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Max Value
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Mean
2.73
2.71
2.55
2.91
3
2.67
2.95
Variance
1.16
1.11
1.4
0.66
0.67
0.73
0.9
Standard Deviation
1.08
1.06
1.18
0.81
0.82
0.86
0.95
Total Responses
22
21
22
22
22
21
22
Total Respondents
22
21
22
22
22
21
22
StatisticOption to request that uploaders authorize the institution to store and distribute the document.(distribution license)Store distribution license with content
Min Value
1
1
Max Value
4
4
Mean
3.05
3
Variance
0.75
0.8
Standard Deviation
0.86
0.89
Total Responses
21
21
Total Respondents
21
21
#QuestionDon’t KnowNot ImportantWould be niceEssentialResponseAverage Value
1Option to request that uploaders authorize the institution to store and distribute the document.(distribution license)
2
1
12
6
21
3.05
2Store distribution license with content
2
2
11
6
21
3.00
Distribution license
StatisticSystem/collection level usage statisticsItem level usage statistics
Min Value
1
1
Max Value
4
4
Mean
3.38
3.09
Variance
0.95
0.85
Standard Deviation
0.97
0.92
Total Responses
21
22
Total Respondents
21
22
#QuestionDon’t KnowNot ImportantWould be niceEssentialResponseAverage Value
1System/collection level usage statistics
2
1
5
13
21
3.38
2Item level usage statistics
2
2
10
8
22
3.09
System generated usage statistics and reports
StatisticPersistent document identificationData preservation supportObject history/version control
Min Value
1
1
1
Max Value
4
4
4
Mean
3.32
3.36
3.09
Variance
1.08
0.81
0.94
Standard Deviation
1.04
0.9
0.97
Total Responses
22
22
22
Total Respondents
22
22
22
#QuestionDon’t KnowNot ImportantWould be niceEssentialResponseAverage Value
1Persistent document identification
3
-
6
13
22
3.32
2Data preservation support
2
-
8
12
22
3.36
3Object history/version control
3
-
11
8
22
3.09
Archiving
StatisticDocumentation/manualListservBug track/feature request systemFormal support/help desk
Min Value
1
1
1
1
Max Value
4
4
4
4
Mean
3.27
2.73
2.82
3.32
Variance
0.49
0.68
0.63
0.51
Standard Deviation
0.7
0.83
0.8
0.72
Total Responses
22
22
22
22
Total Respondents
22
22
22
22
#QuestionDon’t KnowNot ImportantWould be niceEssentialResponseAverage Value
1Documentation/manual
1
-
13
8
22
3.27
2Listserv
2
5
12
3
22
2.73
3Bug track/feature request system
3
-
17
2
22
2.82
4Formal support/help desk
1
-
12
9
22
3.32
Support
StatisticOAI-PMH Version SupportedZ39.50 Protocol compliantOther
Min Value
1
1
1
Max Value
4
4
1
Mean
2.43
2
1
Variance
2.36
1.5
0
Standard Deviation
1.54
1.22
0
Total Responses
21
21
7
Total Respondents
21
21
7
#QuestionDon’t KnowNot ImportantWould be niceEssentialResponseAverage Value
1OAI-PMH Version Supported
11
-
-
10
21
2.43
2Z39.50 Protocol compliant
11
3
3
4
21
2.00
3Other
7
-
-
-
7
1.00
Standards Information:


Text Entry
Ideally we could link documents to a standard library discovery. Using OAI/PMH.
I think the most important search feature is full text searching because that is how people search. Would items indexed be google be protected if password predicted? Post search facets would be very helpful. Not clunky. Clean interface. intuitive to non specialized user. branding for each institution. seamless integration with college websites.
None
Boolean search would be good.
- We have to find a balance between excessive overhead to implement and manage and meeting as many requirements as are feasible. - Staff time dedicated to cultivating interest, soliciting content, managing content, etc. is imperative. (This has been our chief obstacle.) - For us access (as in "open access" too) is a driving principle. I am a bit bothered by the notion that we make documents available with restrictions. I question whether such documents should indeed be included within a repository and simply made available via an off-line basis. I realize that there may be occasional exceptions but don't see significant expenditures for development as beneficial for exceptions.
bepress Digital Commons offers a fine example
No additional concerns.
StatisticValue
Respondents7
User interface / Search capability / Web retrieval   

The Task Force expects and anticipates that any institutional repository software or service will provide a customizable user interface with standard user tools. Search capabilities will include full text searching, Boolean logic, truncation and wildcards, and will search all descriptive metadata and allow for selective metadata field searching.
Software or services will also allow indexing by Google and other search engines of data institutions choose to expose to such indexing/search services.

Suggestions concerning user interface or search capabilities:

Text Entry
None
n/a
- The challenge I have seen in the few attempts out there at a collaborative IR is preserving institutional identity. This sort of distinct identification lies at the heart of most institutional motivations for an IR -- especially to fund them. - Some material won't be "preserved" primarily through digitization (e.g., historcially essential institutional documents). - Some of these historcially essential institutional documents can gain vastly greater dissemination/access with digitization -- e.g., yearbooks, catalogs, institutional publications. (We have done these sorts of things through the Internet Archive but prepare local finding aids.) - Some resources may only be preserved digitally if they are to be preserved at all. E.g., special lecture series, faculty/student musical recitals, senior art shows. Apart from digital preservation, other means may be impractical or otherwise unteneable.
Good work! Keep at it.
We need a system that is easy for people to submit things to and low cost to maintain. Those are the most important considerations.
Great work on the survey. Thanks for your hard work. Having a long term digital preservation plan in place would be very helpful for this IR. I am curious how historical documents such as manuscripts would fit, or not fit, into this collaborative IR.
StatisticValue
Respondents6
Any additional feedback for the IR taskforce: