DRS Modernization ("DRS Futures") Project Charter



I. Problem/Value Statement

Problem Statement

After more than 20 years of productive incremental enhancement, Harvard Library's Digital Repository Service (DRS) has reached the effective limits of its conceptual design and operational implementation.  In its current form, the DRS is no longer an appropriate platform for flexible, responsible, and sustainable preservation of the Library’s digital collections, especially as they are envisioned to grow in number, size, and diversity in coming years.   

Business Value

This project provides a needed generational modernization of the DRS, positioning it as the foundation for meeting the Library’s ever-evolving preservation goals, needs, and aspirations.  Three decades into the 21st-century information age, this digital capacity is critical to the ongoing success of Harvard's research, teaching, and learning mission, as well as the safeguarding of its intellectual and institutional legacy.  This effort benefits current and future students, scholars, administrators, and staff. 

II. Vision and Approach

Vision 

The modernized DRS will provide effective, efficient, and sustainable long-term preservation of and access to University digital content in any genre or format, of any number or size, in any language, with any description, for any duration, secure against any eventuality, for any (re)use pertinent to the University's research, teaching, and learning mission and smooth administrative operation. 

Approach 

The project will reconceive, design, acquire and/or develop, and deploy modern repository infrastructure addressing the Visionary aspirations and providing the Business Value outlined above.  Project activities will embrace transparency and accountability; be guided by extensive stakeholder engagement and critical understanding of state-of-the-art archival theory and professional best practice; rely upon close consultation and collaboration between HL, HUIT/ LTS, FAS RC, and other University units of relevant expertise; fully exploit advances and innovative platforms in the technological landscape; and be open to consideration of community-supported open-source as well as commercial solutions and internal targeted add-value development. 

III. In Scope/Out of Scope

In-Scope 

Four nominally-sequential phases of: 

  • Preparation – Assembling project team and creating initial project management artifacts. 
  • Discovery – Exploring possibilities of an ideal repository meeting current and future stakeholder needs, goals, and aspirations. 
  • Planning – Specifying parameters of an achievable repository consistent with available HL and LTS resources. 
  • Implementation – Deploying an operational repository with verified data/metadata migration, minimal production service interruption, training, and contingency plans. 

Out-of-Scope 

Although the modernized DRS should support the fullest possible opportunities for human and automated interoperability with other HL and University systems, implementational consideration of digital content production, cataloging, discovery, dissemination, or (re)use are out-of-scope for this project. 

IV. Deliverables/Work Products

0.  Preparation 

  • Project charter 
  • Timeline 
  • Internal communication plan and channels 
  • Online collaboration space(s) 
  • Governance reporting plan 
  • Job descriptions, HR classification, and hiring of Information Architect and Business Analyst 
  • Statement-of-work, expressions-of-interest, and contracting of Consultant(s) 

1.  Discovery 

  • Literature review and concept mapping 
  • Abstract reference models for data representation, storage, processing, and interaction 
  • Identification of relevant stakeholder communities across HL and the University 
  • Stakeholder consultation 
  • Use cases 
  • Function/non-functional requirements 
  • Outreach plan 

2.  Planning 

  • Landscape survey of possible solutions 
  • Evaluation rubric 
  • Build/build/integrate decision 
  • RFP and/or agile development plan 
  • Migration and QA plan 
  • Technical specifications 
  • Acceptance criteria 

3.  Implementation 

  • Local or hosted deployment of new repository infrastructure, with bare-metal, virtual, or cloud server provisioning as necessary 
  • Integration/customization as necessary 
  • Verified migration of data/metadata 
  • Acceptance testing and remediation as necessary 
  • Documentation, training, and outreach 
  • Decommissioning of old hardware/software
  • Post-mortem reflection 

V.  Stakeholders 


Function 

Stakeholder 

Contact 

DRS Business Owner 

Digital Preservation Services

Stephen Abrams, Head of DPS 

DRS Technical Owner 

Library Technology Services

Stu Snydman, Associate University Librarian and Managing Director for Library Technology  

DRS Technical Team 

Library Technology Services

Vitaly Zakuta, Project Manager 

DRS Operations Team 

Library Technology Services

Sharon Boland, Director, LTS Systems Deployment and Integration 

DRS Support Team 

Library Technology Services

 Emily Kelly, Maureen Driscoll: Production Systems Librarians

DRS Collection Managers 

Harvard Library / Harvard College Library, professional school, and administrative departmental librarians, archivists, and curators 

 

Large-scale content producers 

Digital Scholarship, Imaging Services, Harvard Art Museums, Harvard Dataverse, Media Preservation Services, Office for Scholarly Communication

Matt Cook, Digital Scholarship Program Manager 

Bill Comstock, Head of Imaging Services

Jeff Steward, Director, Harvard Art Museums Digital Infrastructure and Emerging Technologies 

Sonia Barbosa, Harvard Dataverse Data Curation Manager 

Kaylie Ackerman, Head of Media Preservation Services

Kyle Courtney, Office for Scholarly Communication Program Manager 

Specialized content communities 

Research Computing and Data

Research Data Management

Krista Valladares, Assoc. Director of University Research Computing 

Ceilyn Boyd, Harvard Library Research Data Program Manager 

Project Executive Committee 

Harvard Library, Library Technology Services, FAS Research Computing, Harvard Art Museums, Harvard professional school representatives

Stu Snydman, Associate University Librarian and Managing Director, Library Technology 

Franziska Frey, Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor for University Library Strategy, Planning and Assessment, Harvard Library 

Stephen Abrams, Head of Digital Preservation, Harvard Library 

Ardys Kozbial, Assistant University Librarian for Content Strategies and Associate Librarian for FAS, Harvard Library 

Ginny Hunt, University Archivist, Harvard Library 

Scott Yockel, University Research Computing Officer, Harvard University IT 

Rashmi Singhal, Director of Arts & Humanities, Research Computing, Harvard University IT 

Jason Shaffner, Associate Vice President, Administrative Technology Services for Harvard University IT 

Abby Cramer, Digital Asset Manager/Digital Archivist, Harvard Art Museums 

Vitaly Zakuta, Senior IT Project Manager, Library Technology (Chair) 


Project Governance Oversight 

Stewardship Standing Committee, Born Digital Stewardship Advisory Group 


 

Project Advisory Group 

Harvard Library, Harvard professional school representatives, FAS Research Computing, Harvard Art Museums


ITCRB Oversight 

HUIT Project Management Office

 Jennifer Jubinville, Senior Planning and Program Manager, Technology Strategy & Planning, Harvard University IT

VI.  Key Tasks and Outcomes 

  • Assemble project team and establish project best practices 
  • Comprehensive use cases, requirements, and specifications 
  • Product(s) selection 
  • Deployment and cutover 

VII. Schedule

Phase

Phase Start

Phase End

Discovery

July 2022

Summer 2023

Planning

Summer 2023

December 2023

Implementation

January 2024

Summer 2025

VIII.  Constraints, Assumptions, and Risks 

Constraints 

  • 3-year ITCRB funding 
  • Finite HL and LTS staffing 
  • Competing HL and LTS priorities 
  • Need to maintain operational continuity of the existing DRS throughout the project 

Assumptions 

  • Availability of legitimate commercial and open-source products supporting critical baseline functions consistent with, and largely fulfilling, in whole or in part, aspirational DRS needs, goals, and aspirations 
  • High-quality pool of applicants for new projects positions and consultancies 
  • Willing participation of stakeholder communities 

Risks 

  • Staffing turnover 
  • Failure of selected solution product(s) to work substantively as promoted and assumed 

Project Documents