Nature of Collaborations: Rewards and Pitfalls Winning the Vote Jill Ann Hurst Hurst Associates, Ltd. Presented at MARAC Oct. 1,

Nature of Collaborations: Rewards and Pitfalls

Winning the Vote

Jill Ann HurstHurst Associates, Ltd.

www.HurstAssociates.com

Presented at MARAC Oct. 1, 2004

Hurst Associates, Ltd.

Background

• The Rochester Regional Library Council, one of the nine Reference and Research Resources (3R) systems in New York State, began a two-year digitization project in 1998. The first 3R council to begin such a project.

• The demonstration project was meant to be a learning opportunity for libraries and cultural heritage organizations in the region, while creating a useable product.


• This project was formally called the “Women’s Suffrage Digitization Project,” however, the web site was named “Winning the Vote.”

• Over the two-year period, I was the project manager who oversaw committees, educational opportunities, the digitization team, and the collaborative effort.


Year One

• Year One was dedicated to empowering teams to learn and create guidelines for this and other digitization projects. The teams, along with the project manager, wrote and published: General Digitization Guidelines WSDP Specific Implementation

Guidelines Project Timetable


• The teams tackled issues such as: Selection criteria Copyright Insurance File formats Item handling concerns Vendor selection criteria


• The output of Year One was a document that contained the guidelines and blueprint for Year Two. The document was made available in

electronic and hardcopy forms, in hopes that other institutions could learn from it.


Assessment of Year One

• Having someone on staff (project manager), to oversee the committees and do what they could not, was critical. The project manager also helped to

ensure that knowledgeable team members didn’t overwhelm those who were just learning about digital assets.


• Staff members from libraries, local cultural heritage organizations and one commercial company were willing to work on the committees as a way of learning about digitization. They did indeed contribute to the guidelines and had a lasting effect on the project, becoming advocates during Year Two.


• Although no collaboration was done between institutions during Year One, one museum did volunteer to produce a needed training class on handling and housing archival materials. (This is a skill that is lacking in many small historical societies.)


• One project flaw of Year One affected Year Two. The grant did not cover the cost of

locating items that could be digitized. It would have been helpful to the project, if the work of locating appropriate items had begun during the first year. The team would have known better what was available and could have laid groundwork with more institutions.


• However, the RRLC office did have a Document Heritage Program (DHP) person on staff who linked us to work that the DHP representatives in the state were doing to began an inventory of historical societies. This helped the project get started in finding materials.


Year Two

• Year Two was dedicated to implementing the guidelines and creating “Winning the Vote” and presenting “content in context.” That meant not only having digitized items, but also descriptive text and other information so that readers/viewers understood the context of the materials.


• The team did and/or oversaw: Selecting suffragists Locating materials to digitize Digitizing items Building a web site Writing biographies, timelines & other

text


• A core group was created to do most of the work. Project manager Project manager associate Project historian Digitization vendor Web site developer Intern


• The results can be seen at http://www.WinningTheVote.org As a demonstration project, however, the

site is not being maintained.


Lessons learned from Year Two

• Collaboration with the participating institutions: The project team often worked with

volunteer or part-time staff at historical societies and historian offices. Because they were less likely to know about the project and about digitization, this required more of an educational effort about the project than anticipated.


In some cases, the team had to work with multiple individuals to discuss potential use and possible restrictions on specific items. This occurred both in large and small institutions. In some large institutions, our request had to be approved by a committee that oversaw use of the collection.


Not all institutions knew what items they had in their collections. This required the team to make multiple contacts with the institution to ask about the collection in “different” ways. For example, some institutions did not catalogue their items with terms such as “suffragist.” With those institutions, the team had to inquire about specific people that were believed to be suffragists in that area.


Some institutions, even though they understood the project and its value, did not want to participate. • A few institutions were reluctant to let

materials leave their sites. • In a few cases, internal political issues,

structural changes, and building construction prevented institutions from participating.


The team did receive assistance from private sources, government institutions, small historical societies and museums, large museums, public libraries, academic libraries, and local “Friends” organizations.


• Collaboration among members of the virtual project team: The team project staff plus volunteers

worked together well and was very flexible; however, several things would have improved the overall process.


• The “virtual team” – staff, contract workers, volunteers – should have met occasionally as a “real” team, in order to improve communication. This would have been difficult because all staff were part-time and in different geographic locations, but not impossible. (Ex., The historian was in North Carolina.)


• The job of cataloguing – which was not covered by the grant, but which was necessary for the project – had to be handled by a volunteer cataloguer (an intern from the Library School at SUNY Buffalo). This created problems in integrating cataloguing into the project.


Economies of Scale

• In the end, the project digitized approx. 200 items from 18 institutions covering 30 suffragists.

• Working with this many institutions allowed the team to experience different situations and provide a better end-product. However, it did not make the project easier or less expensive. We believe, though, that the project would not have been successful otherwise.


• The entire cost of the project is unknown, since that would take into account time spent by participating institutions to look for materials in their collections, etc. However, what is known is the amount of the two grants received by RRLC for the project. RRLC received a 1999 LSTA grant of

$29,275, which was followed the next year with a LSTA grant of $49,654.


The Legacy of Winning the Vote • The site is up and receiving minimal

maintenance. No content has been added since 2000. However, the site is still heavily used, getting over 500 hits a day and positive comments from people and students from around the world. This worldwide usage is not only due to

the international interest in suffrage, but also the marketing that the team did through printed and electronic means.


• Although it helped pave the way for other 3R councils to think about digitization, RRLC has not embark on another such project. Why? Kathleen M. Miller, executive director of RRLC said recently:


I believe that, at the time, libraries in our region were struggling with other issues. They gave us a clear message that digitization was not – could not – be a priority…I think a reason – for public libraries at least – was that Rochester Public Library (RPL) was doing the Rochester Images Project (since on hold for lack of funding). There is some sense that the interest is again picking up, especially in regard to digitizing historically significant newspapers.


• Finally, the last legacy is that those who worked on Winning the Vote have been able to advise others, acting as formal or informal consultants on digitization projects.

Nature of Collaborations: Rewards and Pitfalls Winning the Vote Jill Ann Hurst Hurst Associates, Ltd. Presented at MARAC Oct. 1,

Documents

project flaw of year

twoyear digitization

demonstration project

staff project manager

affected year

year oneyear

output of year

year twoyear