3 Committees formed
System-wide Committee asked What would be "real" benefit of splitting into 3 universities. Committee suggested that competition makes each university stronger, and coined the term "competitive cooperation:" Core services will remain, but competition makes each stronger. Agnew suggested analogy with concept of dialectical materialism (recorder's note: whose basic tenets are that everything is aterial and that change takes place through "the struggle of opposites.") The three universities would develop communities of interest with other institutions. Agnew also reported the consensus f her committee is I.T. is stretched too thin. Her committee also discussed "one way segregation." Response to security concerns at local level will become increasingly important. Committee also discussed quality control in the form of a common core of key indicators (to judge in time how well restructuring is working). Committee noted a need for "actualized IT" but not at the local level, hence middle-ware will be developed and made cross-institutional. Boyle: Committee members asked what will it take to make the 3 universities top tier, and noted unanimity in support of the Libraries enduring as a single corporate entity.
Every organization can build onto Fedora, therefore, we become a ommunity of developers. The model is reflexive and collaborative.
We selected Fedora principally because of its ability to apply applications to and manage objects.
Nobody yet knows what a repository is, whether e.g. it defines the work of a distinct community (the university), or something more open and dynamic.
At the current rate, the project will be completed in 5-6 years; by not checking the shelf, this timetable can be reduced to 2 years; checking for book on shelf has not demonstrated significant not-on-shelf [nos.]
Won unanimous support.
The committee identified five goals for 2004:
1. Identify distributed technical services processes across campuses, libraries and departments, look for commonalities and redundancies across processes, particularly comparing centralized processes with distributed processes. Prioritize distributed processes for developing systemwide minimal standards. Committee: R. Marker (chair), V. Pelote, J. Still, G. Smulewitz, M. Joseph (adjunct).
2. Understand and provide guidance on Systems project priority setting.
3. Improve processes and information sharing between Acquisitions, Selectors and the Finance Office.
4. Evaluate workflow for government documents batch cataloging and streamline workflow to integrate project into ongoing workflow.
5. Implement batch processes as recommended by ISAWG to streamline