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College historical documents and photographs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
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