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.  Â
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.Â
II. Vision and Approach
VisionÂ
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.Â
ApproachÂ
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.Â
III. In Scope/Out of Scope
In-ScopeÂ
Four nominally-sequential phases of:Â
- Preparation – Assembling project team and creating initial project management artifacts.Â
- Discovery – Exploring possibilities of an ideal repository meeting current and future stakeholder needs, goals, and aspirations.Â
- Planning – Specifying parameters of an achievable repository consistent with available HL and LTS resources.Â
- Implementation – Deploying an operational repository with verified data/metadata migration, minimal production service interruption, training, and contingency plans.Â
Out-of-ScopeÂ
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.Â
IV. Deliverables/Work Products
0. PreparationÂ
- Project charterÂ
- TimelineÂ
- Internal communication plan and channelsÂ
- Online collaboration space(s)Â
- Governance reporting planÂ
- Job descriptions, HR classification, and hiring of Information Architect and Business AnalystÂ
- Statement-of-work, expressions-of-interest, and contracting of Consultant(s)Â
1. DiscoveryÂ
- Literature review and concept mappingÂ
- Abstract reference models for data representation, storage, processing, and interactionÂ
- Identification of relevant stakeholder communities across HL and the UniversityÂ
- Stakeholder consultationÂ
- Use casesÂ
- Function/non-functional requirementsÂ
- Outreach planÂ
2. PlanningÂ
- Landscape survey of possible solutionsÂ
- Evaluation rubricÂ
- Build/build/integrate decisionÂ
- RFP and/or agile development planÂ
- Migration and QA planÂ
- Technical specificationsÂ
- Acceptance criteriaÂ
3. ImplementationÂ
- Local or hosted deployment of new repository infrastructure, with bare-metal, virtual, or cloud server provisioning as necessaryÂ
- Integration/customization as necessaryÂ
- Verified migration of data/metadataÂ
- Acceptance testing and remediation as necessaryÂ
- Documentation, training, and outreachÂ
- Decommissioning of old hardware/software
- Post-mortem reflectionÂ
V. StakeholdersÂ
Function | Stakeholder | Contact |
DRS Business Owner | Stephen Abrams, Head of DPS | |
DRS Technical Owner | Stu Snydman, Associate University Librarian and Managing Director for Library Technology  | |
DRS Technical Team | Vitaly Zakuta, Project Manager | |
DRS Operations Team | Sharon Boland, Director, LTS Systems Deployment and Integration | |
DRS Support Team |  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 OutcomesÂ
- Assemble project team and establish project best practicesÂ
- Comprehensive use cases, requirements, and specificationsÂ
- Product(s) selectionÂ
- Deployment and cutoverÂ
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 RisksÂ
ConstraintsÂ
- 3-year ITCRB fundingÂ
- Finite HL and LTS staffingÂ
- Competing HL and LTS prioritiesÂ
- Need to maintain operational continuity of the existing DRS throughout the projectÂ
AssumptionsÂ
- 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 aspirationsÂ
- High-quality pool of applicants for new projects positions and consultanciesÂ
- Willing participation of stakeholder communitiesÂ
RisksÂ
- Staffing turnoverÂ
- Failure of selected solution product(s) to work substantively as promoted and assumedÂ