Academic Library/Museum Collaboration 59

Academic Library/Museum Collaboration: I’m OK, You’re OK

Nancy Allen and Liz Bishoff

Introduction While these institutions share similar goals and mis- Libraries, museums, archives, and historical societies share sions, there is no common vocabulary, no common policies an over-arching common purpose of acquiring, organizing, on access and use by the public, and no common standard or preserving and presenting the cultural and scientific heri- best practices to support the goal of access. tage of society. In January, 2000 an article on the efforts of The report summaries that these institutions: European libraries, archives and museums to develop a • Organize the European cultural and intellectual record framework for cooperation in the networked environment, • Contain the memory of peoples, communities, institu- sponsored by the European Commission’s Information So- tions and individuals, the scientific and cultural heritage, ciety Directorate General, notes that the framework is based and the products through time of our imagination on the assumption, “…that libraries, archives and museums • They join our ancestors and are our legacy to the fu- have shared research interests…can identify several broad ture generations goals that underpin these and encourage collaborative ac- • Support the creation of the heritage of the future.3 tivity…”1 . The goals are: Within this common vision, each of the communities • To release the value of Europe’s scientific, industrial addresses the goals within their own curatorial traditions and cultural heritage in creative use by its citizens. and organizational contexts, and specific national or admin- • To engage with the cultural identities and aspirations istrative framework. “The recognition that common inter- of Europe and its peoples. ests converge on the Internet, driven by the desire to re- • To develop practices appropriate to upholding the lease the value of their collections…that support creative values and purposes of library, archival and museum tradi- use by as many users as possible.”4 The participating insti- tions in a digital environment. tutions understand that the users desire to increased access • To explore what it means to develop virtual civic pres- to the intellectual and cultural materials in a flexible man- ence. ner, without concern for who owns the resource. “To support • To explore sustainable economic models which sup- this need, they recognize the need for services that provide port both development and continued equitable access to unified routes into their deep collective resources….”5 . At the cultural heritage.2 the same time these institutions are all developing their

Nancy Allen is dean and director at University of Denver. Liz Bishoff is project director at the Colorado Digiti- zation Project.

59 March 15–18, 2001, Denver, Colorado 60 Nancy Allen and Liz Bishoff own approaches for organization and access to their resources. ten hold as part of a larger organization. For instance an However, their individual professional traditions and archive might be a division within a research library or a practices vary. Different descriptive standards are used, as major museum. This has led to an acute awareness of prac- well as different terminology, and different approaches to tices in other types of memory institutions. presentation of information6 . In fact, when talking about Until the availability of digitization capabilities, access these four types of institutions, there is not a commonly and use of collections was limited to the local facility. Ex- accepted aggregate term. Perhaps they could be called Cul- hibits were largely viewed by people within close geo- tural Heritage Institutions (CHIs) – with “cultural” defined graphic proximity And collective knowledge resources held to include scientific resources as well as the creative, social, by more than one cultural heritage organizations were di- and humanities traditions. In Great Britain, the term vided and practically impossible to unite without the tre- “memory institution” has been coined. Whatever we might mendous effort of collections transfer or loan. call these great organizations, their collections contain the The Age of the Internet, however has changed the envi- history and knowledge of communities, cultures, countries, ronment. It has opened up to cultural heritage institutions governments, and individuals as well as their creative out- the opportunities to make their collections accessible from put. It makes a great deal of sense that these organizations any location in the world, 365 days a year 24 hours a day. At work together, but aside from exceptional instances, they the same time, the Internet has created an increasingly com- have not done so until recently. petitive environment. A museum in Denver will be compet- The libraries of North America have extensive experi- ing with a San Francisco museum for both virtual visitors as ence collaborating across all types of libraries, even includ- well as onsite visitors touring the area. On the other hand, ing private or specialized libraries. Libraries work together libraries and museums with seemingly unique special col- in academic-public library partnerships, public-school li- lections will discover others with similar or complimentary brary programs, regional consortiums for technology sup- holdings. The networked environment offers us new oppor- port, and dozens of other combinations for general cost- tunities and new challenges in meeting our unique mis- sharing or specific project purposes. This happens even sions where there are new players in the cultural heritage though each library is quite clear about its primary clien- arena. The greatest gains for our public can be seen through tele, and its mission within its primary communities. increased access to resources that span the boundaries of Museum professionals have joined professional organi- our collections. How do we realize those gains while main- zations, a key collaborative activity, and museums them- taining our individual identities? selves join national and regional collaboratives.7 These How are academic libraries and their partners-in-pur- meetings of art museum directors, or natural science mu- pose (archives, historical societies, and museums) moving seum directors, or of museum and historical societies in a forward with collaboration, and what are some of the barri- region are critical to the development of common practices, ers to achieving unity? There has been quite a lot of col- but it has been uncommon for museums of different types to laboration in the air, actually. collaborate, unless the topic is presentation of exhibits with collections in common. Nonetheless, for the past decade, The Pace of Collaboration major art museums have been working together to create The Library of Congress American Memory Project is well digital works that can be licensed for educational uses, known for its efforts to digitize key collections on American through AMICO. 8 The MESL9 project led the way with History from the Library’s collections, with special care taken licensing agreements for the digital museum world. CIMI10 to create a collection that can be used by both scholars and the is an international museum organization that started in 1990 nation’s K–12 teachers and schools. Through special funding working together on standards and technology-related re- from Ameritech other US libraries and museums with collec- search. The Museum Computer Network11 is a collective tions related to LC material have contributed digital resources effort making contributions in a web environment. And in- to the project, expanding the National Digital Library. Ex- ternational efforts are well under way with large scale and amples of museum and library projects available at the Ameri- well funded European and British collaborative plans.12 can Memory site (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ The archival community has quite a long tradition of amhome.html) include information on the American Indians professional practice, nearly as long as libraries have, and of the Pacific Northwest, on the Everglades, and on the settle- this tradition is leveraged by the position that archives of- ment of the Ohio River Valley.13

ACRL Tenth National Conference Academic Library/Museum Collaboration 61

Further, the National Science Foundation, with its Digi- • to create an open, distributed, publicly accessible digi- tal Library initiatives, poured millions into research projects tal collection, benefiting all who were interested in the long term impact • to establish a collaborative structure among the state’s of digitization of research material, primary resources, text, libraries, museums, archives, and historical societies to coor- and media. Museums benefited from a number of these dinate and guide the development of the digital collections, awards through participation as partners, and from the re- • to establish criteria and standards to guide the selec- search results, but the purpose of the NSF funding was not tion of material for inclusion, collaboration. • to assist organizations in digitizing and creating ac- The greatest impetus to museum/library collaboration cess to material by finding common practices and creating has been through the Institute of Museum and Library Ser- guidelines, vices (http://imls.gov), with its National Leadership Grants • to demonstrate how digital material can benefit high supporting museum/library collaboration. Through IMLS school students and teachers working to meet the Colorado funding, a growing number of academic libraries are history standards. partnering with museums and historical societies, and other The Colorado Digitization Project was conceived through scientific and cultural heritage organizations. Until the cre- collaboration. The management structure of the project re- ation of the Institute of Museum and Library Services, col- flects this commitment. Liz Bishoff, the Project Director, is laboration among and between cultural heritage institution working with a steering committee with individuals repre- categories was relatively rare. The IMLS presented these senting the Colorado State Library, the University of Den- communities with incentives to develop joint projects, and to ver (DU), The Denver Museum of Nature and Science work together to create ways of better meeting common goals (DMNS), the Mesa Verde National Park Research Library, and purposes, of creating better and more accessible collec- the Littleton Historical Society, the Colorado Alliance of tions that meet the needs of a knowledge society.14 Dozens Research Libraries, the Pathfinder and High Plains Library of large and small CHIs have partnered with other organiza- Systems, and the Colorado Historical Society. DMNS and tions, including libraries, to bring their resources to a broader DU are the lead institutions in the IMLS grant, which is audience, and to overcome limits of geography, preservation providing major funding. Other funding is coming from concerns, exhibition space, and time. LSTA, and the Colorado regional library systems. In order to get “buy-in” and to find scanning, metadata, Risk and Success Factors for Collaboration and planning solutions acceptable to all four types of cul- The largest and most ambitious of these IMLS projects is in tural heritage organizations, a set of task forces (each con- Colorado. The Colorado Digitization Project (CDP) has ex- taining individuals from each type of organization) worked tended previous collaborative work undertaken by the Colo- on guidelines and standards. These task forces addressed rado library community into new areas, involving museums, museum issues, metadata, scanning, collections and selec- archives, and historical societies. The CDP is a collaborative tion, website development, K–12 teachers and curriculum planning and project development effort designed to increase coordinators, and training. As each group reached agree- participation in digitization efforts and to expand access to ment, documents articulating the agreements were posted primary resources in digital format. The CDP focuses on to the website. Meeting minutes are distributed through primary resources such as historical documents, original task force listservs. A great deal of work is done via email, papers, audio material, photographs, diaries, or other ma- but there are also regular face-to-face meetings, which ev- terial which need to be scanned or otherwise converted eryone feels is key to genuine collaboration and consensus. into digital form. Project achievements to date include: The CDP purpose is to work collaboratively to bring • CDP surveyed cultural heritage institutions to dis- together, from all corners of the state, digitized material cover where digitization activity was already underway or that will: planned. • ensure public access to the rich resources of Colorado, • Current or planned efforts were linked to a CDP • promote the economic and efficient delivery of full website, which also contains extensive toolkit information text and graphical resources to the people of Colorado, for digitization project management. These links are avail- • contribute to the national effort to develop digital li- able through browse screens by medium, alphabetically, or braries, via a clickable map.

March 15–18, 2001, Denver, Colorado 62 Nancy Allen and Liz Bishoff

• An open two day seminar on project planning helped ing equal roles in leadership, problem solving, and collection many interested institutions have a good sense of the issues development. Because of our experiences, we became increas- involved in digitization project management. ingly curious about the experiences of other academic li- • A pilot project focused on K–12 applications of digi- brary/museum collaboratives, and wondered if there were tal collections of primary material identified a number of success or risk factors effecting all such collaboratives. issues related to work with curriculum coordinators, teach- We undertook a series of interviews with three other ers, and the Colorado outcomes-based educational standards. academic library/museum projects, all funded by IMLS. • A long range plan was prepared, widely reviewed, We contacted the Principal Investigators at the libraries of and adopted. University of Kansas, University of Illinois, and Carnegie • Training programs were developed and are being of- Mellon University. We asked them if they would agree to fered on a regular basis across the state. do a phone interview covering a list of questions (Appen- • Software for a global catalog of digital object metadata dix A). Prior to the call the questions were sent to each was licensed and work is underway to load contributed interviewee allowing them time to discuss the questions metadata from project partners. with their partner institutions. The questions were based on • Five regional scan centers were set up so partners our own experience with the issues we found interesting or have ready access to high quality equipment. challenging in the Colorado project, but were designed to • Through a granting program, CDP is expanding the explore experiences of other projects. We found that the number of organizations doing digitization, and aims to questions worked well, allowing a full exploration of the produce about 50,000 new digital objects, involving about success and risk factors in other academic library/museum 20 new organizations, largely in partnership projects. Small collaborations . Each interview took about an hour. Although competitive incentive grants offer partial funding ranging we covered all questions in each interview, when needed, from $1,500 for projects on the scale of 50-500 images, to we pursued other questions and issues that arose, allowing $5,000 for projects on the scale of 1000 images. All of these those interviewed to explain their perspectives on processes projects had to involve collaboration among at least one and issues leading to success or problems. Both Liz Bishoff library/archive and one museum/historical society. The and Nancy Allen participated in each interview. Following CDP has identified major partners in Colorado, and in addi- a summary of each interview, common threads revealing tion to the competitive grants, the CDP provided $10,000 shared risk and success factors will be discussed. grants to cultural heritage organizations already knowl- edgeable about digitization so that they could make faster University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign progress on digitization efforts, producing at least 3000 Representing University of Illinois’ IMLS-funded project additional digital objects. Many of these primary partner entitled, “Digital Cultural Heritage Community” was Beth projects are also collaborative. Sandore, Principal Investigator and Nuala Bennett, Project • Research will be conducted on two topics identified as Coordinator. This project involves a number of very differ- significant issues by historical societies and museums. First, ent partners: the University of Illinois Digital Imaging we will do some basic measurement on the impact of web- and Media TechnologyInitiative, the University of Illi- based exhibits on gate count, since this is of concern to nois at Urbana-Champaign Rare Book and Special Collec- museums and historical societies dependent on gate receipts. tions Library, the Lincoln Trails Libraries System, the Early Second, we will conduct usability analyses comparing the American Museum in Mahomet, the Illinois Heritage Asso- effectiveness for different user markets of the library cata- ciation in Champaign, The McLean County Museum of log approach to finding images compared to the museum History in Bloomington, and several teachers in three area exhibit or gallery approach. The latter is highly interpre- elementary schools. The purpose of this project was to test a tive, with a prepared expert context presented along with collaborative approach to selecting, digitizing, delivering, digital objects. The former is not judgmental, relying on the and using primary source material in the classroom. A vari- user’s own interpretation to create context and package im- ety of historical societies and museums partnered with 3rd, ages retrieved. 4th, and 5th grade teachers. With this project summary, you can see the CDP partici- Values and Mission: The interview discussion revealed pants have entered into a huge adventure in cultural heri- that this project began with discussions among partners in tage collaboration, with academic libraries and museums tak- order to build a collective set of project goals. During these

ACRL Tenth National Conference Academic Library/Museum Collaboration 63

discussions, partners learned that there were differing val- with the advice of an 8-member advisory committee which ues on the library and museum sides. For instance, the mu- included experts outside the project’s participants. The ad- seums placed a high value on interpretive information re- visory committee played a very useful feedback role. They lated to metadata, while the librarians did not want to do were not asked to make decisions for the project partici- any interpretation, and wanted to focus on research, de- pants, but rather were asked for their advice and opinions scription, and publication. Rather than trying to bridge these on specific issues. Then, the P.I. and the Project Coordinator differences, the project leaders recognized them, and found worked with the project partners on making decisions. ways around them that worked for all participants. Another Some problems arose that were not within the expertise example of an issue related to differences in values and of individuals on that advisory panel, but the same model practices surfaced in regard to expectations expressed by was used. For example, when a question about the sensitiv- the teachers in the project. When trying to test the model of ity of historical material referring to Native Americans was letting teachers drive the selection of resources for digiti- raised, the P.I. or Project Coordinator sought advice from zation, teachers were not comfortable basing decisions on experts and Native Americans on campus. the curator’s local finding aids. Therefore, an ongoing nego- Project technology: Because there was not a consistent tiation between teachers and curators about existing collec- level of technology skill among all partners, there was an tions took place. While that was not necessarily the way the assumption that the infrastructure for the project would come project plan showed decision-making happening, and while from the University. This approach worked, as there was it reflects differing values among teachers and curators, it appropriate network access to the University-maintained was a collaborative solution consistent with the overall website by all partners. The partners needed only a browser project purpose. We asked about values placed by museums to contribute metadata, and this simplified approach to the on entry fees, and while there were no conflicts about that technical issues worked nicely once some early decisions issue, the one museum that did charge an entry fee though it about database structure were resolved. might reconsider that policy, seeking new audiences through What really worked? The P.I. and project staff feel web-based education programs. strongly that a shared decision-making model following in- There was a high level of previous agreement about the depth partner workshops worked extremely well, and was goal of the project, and all participants wanted stronger appreciated by all partners. Constant email and threaded outreach programs for K–12 schools. In fact, the University discussion communication worked very well, but looking of Illinois Rare Book and Special Collections Library joined back, the participants felt more face to face meetings may the project for this specific purpose. This aspect of the project have helped at some points. Assessments and focus group worked as a unifying value throughout the project. feedback show that the overall goals of the project are in- Project structure and decision making: All decisions deed being met, and teachers are using the newly digitized were made through consultation, working from a pre-agreed collections. Attitudes toward collaboration with museums timeline. Some of the more complex decisions (such as the are also positive, based on workshops held for library staff. type of metadata to be created) were jointly made after a presentation on the options by the project manager. After University of Kansas testing and sharing results, a consensus decision was pos- The Kansas project interview was done by Sheryl Will- sible, but only after experimenting with a variety of stan- iams, Curator of the Kansas Collection and University Ar- dards. In the area of scan standards, a slightly different chivist, discussing an IMLS funded project with the Uni- model was used. The project administrators held a work- versity of Kansas Archives (part of the Library) and the shop on scanning, discussed emerging standards and best Kansas State Historical Society. The purpose of this project practices, and worked with partners to adopt those practices. was to digitize territorial history holdings in both organiza- This was an area where only the University of Illinois had tions, with schools as the primary audience, and including extensive experience with and knowledge of best practice, creation of a curricular component. The Kansas partners so a training-based model was workable and practical. This will digitize significant primary resources from papers docu- model was also used to create guidelines for copyright and menting the Kansas territorial Pre-Civil War era (1854– other legal issues, with a collaborative agreement resulting, 1861). The project will produce two outcomes: a virtual once it had been reviewed by the University of Illinois repository of the best Territorial Kansas information and legal office. Ongoing issues and decisions were resolved artifacts from the two institutions, and curriculum units based

March 15–18, 2001, Denver, Colorado 64 Nancy Allen and Liz Bishoff on selected digitized items developed to enhance the teach- did not affect the project operations or outcome. Decisions ing of U.S. history at the middle school, high school, and were made through sharing of information, going to confer- college levels. ences, talking to people engaged in other digitization projects, Values and mission: Because the project partners had al- and doing a lot of reading. ready agreed on the purpose prior to development of the Project technology: There is a single web server for the grant, they were highly committed to the project and there project, supported and housed at the University of Kansas. was a very high level of agreement on the goals and values The Historical Society will probably house its own images, related to the project. Further, the partners had worked to- but they will be available from the main server. gether in the past, and knew they had a great deal in common, What really worked?: Having a good idea and knowing especially in missions related to teaching and research. In the enough to deliver the anticipated results are two different past, they shared researchers, they served on each other’s things, and the partners often felt they were too close to the committees, and the key individuals knew each other person- cutting edge. They did not realize in advance that it would ally. Therefore, these issues were not overtly addressed dur- have been helpful to have more technical support at the ing the project. While the K–12 community is a primary University, and a more realistic time frame. The mechanics audience for the Historical Society, it is secondary for the of the project were more complicated than anticipated, and University, the level of shared commitment to that audience they had to learn how to manage red tape in the most effec- was high enough to avoid any conflicts. However, once the tive ways; the historical society partners do not ordinarily project was underway, some differences in values at the orga- seem to encounter as much red tape delays as do the Univer- nizational level did arise. One example related to security sity partners. Outsourcing the scanning was a real benefit, and watermarking. The University watermarks its digital with scan standards represented in the contract. The project objects, and the historical society does not. Display of the has been helpful in increasing knowledge of collections, digital images is also under discussion, so that an adequate and has strengthened the already-close relationship between context is possible for controversial or complex images. While the two organizations. digital exhibits are not being considered, the project will show images in categories for different user groups. Related Carnegie Mellon University to display of images, some archivists were concerned that The three project participants are the CMU Libraries, the remote users would think that the collections online were the Carnegie Natural History Museum, and the CMU Com- only collections available, or conversely, that the website will puter Science Department. The interview was conducted imply that more is available than really is available. with Gloriana St. Clair, University Librarian. The purpose Project structure and decision making: The Curator of of the project, titled “Smart Web Exhibits” was to develop the Kansas Collection and the Director of the Library and innovative and flexible exhibits to make available docu- Archives Division at the Kansas State Historical Society are ments related to a museum owned dinosaur with Carnegie’s the P.I.s for the IMLS grant. Two people from each organi- name. The collections are owned by the museum, the scan- zation are the day to day managers, forming the manage- ning and metadata would be done by the Library, and the ment team. There is a selection committee comprised of software to do a “smart exhibit” would be the responsibility people from both organizations. There were no separate of the Computer Science department, updating and maxi- groups to make decisions about metadata or scan standards; mizing use of the existing system, Helios. rather they invited experts to the management team when Values and mission: The museum is a neighbor, but is needed, so another four to six individuals functioned as an not part of Carnegie Mellon University. It is governed by expanded working group when workload or topics required. a board that also governs the art museum, and the science Most communication was done either face to face in regular museum. The participants were brought together by a single meetings, or via email. There was no other formal communi- individual. There were no overt efforts to unite the visions cation structure. The educational component has not yet or missions, although there is a common thread at CMU and involved individual teachers, but it will. Selection was in- at the Museum which can be simplified in the statement, fluenced by a major survey sent to middle and high school “We believe the future is digital.” Despite that unifying teachers across the state asking what they needed on the theme, there were some conflicts in values and beliefs topic of Kansas and pre-Civil War topics. While the knowl- throughout the project, not so much with the museum and edge level in the two organizations varied, the difference the library, but surprisingly enough, between the computer

ACRL Tenth National Conference Academic Library/Museum Collaboration 65

science and the library philosophies. All three organiza- each partner to have its own strength and authority within tions found that technology advanced so quickly that meth- its arena, which was recognized by the others. St Clair noted, odologies for achieving the ends of the project needed to be “Looking back on the early stages of the project, it might changed. The library culture valued commitment to the have been better to hold meetings that involved many more idea of creating a free resource, while the Computer Sci- people at all levels of the hierarchies of the three organiza- ence culture valued the creation of a potentially viable tions, in order to have a better informed, and more involved commercial product. This tension caused difficulties. The staff at the levels that really did most of the work. More area of values effecting the library and the museum most consensus building at the outset would have been helpful” was the area of metadata standards, with the library plac- ing a higher value on standards than the museum. But since Colorado Digitization Project the library had identified the metadata as its area of re- In an effort to answer the same set of questions, we can see sponsibility from the outset, agreements were possible to that there are interesting similarities, although the Colo- negotiate, and EAD (Encoded Archival Descriptions) solu- rado project is considerably more complex, involving a far tions were found that worked for both the museum and the greater number of organizations and dealing with geo- library. Values related to rights and security were not par- graphic barriers and dramatic differences in the size and ticularly problematic, since not only were the collections to knowledge base of partners. be digitized selected prior to funding, but there was a high Values and Mission: Early in the project, we held the level of organizational agreement among partners that the first of three state-wide leadership programs designed to collections should be highly visible. introduce the major topics involved in digitization project Project structure and decision making: All partner rep- management. This introduction helped get possible part- resentatives met every few months to make decisions, and ners thinking of becoming involved, and built confidence there were extensive email communications between meet- across the state that with support, training, and standards ings, with many people copied, and with discussions in- to follow, many organizations can undertake digitization volving individuals below the director level when needed. projects, even if on a small scale. During the second leader- The project was generally hierarchical in nature, with lead- ship program, we circulated a draft of a mission, values, ership and decision-making done by P.I.s at the top levels and goals statement, and identified the activities planned of each partner organization. for the next 3 years. Those in attendance indicated strong Project technology: Even with very clearly defined support for the statement. The Advisory Committee, made roles for each partner built into the grant, technology seemed up of key stakeholders, undertook an exercise that identi- to require compromise and change throughout the grant fied values around user groups and the varying purposes duration. For instance, new software and hardware were of digital objects for different groups of users. This defini- needed to handle video, and modifications in software were tion of market segments was built into the goals statement necessary for metadata. The user interface design will be and posted on the CDP website. In the first year of the done on the basis of an updated and augmented version of project, a museum task force met several times to help the previously supported software. Much of this is truly state library partners understand the issues of concern to the of the art, and very much based on innovation. But the museum partners in regard to such issues as gate count and resource base at Carnegie Mellon University for technol- revenue, museum ownership of collections, the purpose of ogy is extraordinary, and with a high level of commitment inventory and records management systems (as compared to the success of the project, even high-risk development to the purpose of online catalogs in libraries), and many can be supported with confidence. more complex topics. In short, a huge effort was made to What really worked?: In this case, the collaboration increase the level of understanding of the differences and was structured from the outset as a jigsaw puzzle of inter- similarities of goals and missions and audiences of the related responsibilities rather than a newly built collabora- four kinds of cultural heritage institutions involved in the tive project with its own organization. Representatives from project. Nonetheless, there have been many incidents of the distinct organizations worked together to solve prob- the need to work through difficult issues related to differ- lems, and to set standards. However, it turned out that at ing priorities and values among museum and library part- each decision point, there was considerable conflict to re- ners. Rather than trying to persuade museums to create solve on strategy and technologies. It was necessary for MARC metadata, or libraries to look at Dublin Core or EAD,

March 15–18, 2001, Denver, Colorado 66 Nancy Allen and Liz Bishoff the solution adopted by the project is one that allows each would like more face to face meetings, but those are chal- partner to chose any of the standards-supported methods lenging in the winter months when travel across the moun- of creating metadata as long as a minimum set of descrip- tains becomes limited to air travel, which is too expensive to tive elements are present, and then using the search engine be supported by the project. The annual leadership devel- and interface to provide interoperability. This solution re- opment programs have included increasingly more ad- spects the values, practices, and access approaches of all vanced topics, and feedback from participants is extremely CHIs involved in the project. encouraging. The relationships between the academic li- Project structure and decision making: With a highly braries and other types of partner organizations are devel- visible project manager with a previous reputation for ex- oping as the mini-grant projects proceed. In some cases, pertise in metadata, collaboration, and systems, it would museums and libraries that have never worked together are have been possible to establish the project in a more cen- interested in planning future projects. tralized model, but from the start, there was a high level of commitment to collaboration. A project steering committee Analysis: a look at success and risk factors across the was established with representatives from major project four projects partners, with care to include someone from each cultural Success factors would include: heritage institution type. Task forces with representatives • Communication: Communication throughout a project from each institution type began meeting to design recom- is critical and should include all levels of the organization. mendations for each major activity (scanning, metadata, web Projects should take advantage of both face to face meet- site design, search engine and user interface, etc.) Mini- ings, as well as technology supported communication, par- grants were solicited in a way that resulted in partnership ticularly email and listservs. Face to face meetings are par- projects across the state. ticularly important at the beginning of a project. Project Technology structure: The Colorado Alliance of Re- participants must be able to express needs in the area of search Libraries supported the server and telecommunica- communication, so that patterns of communication can tion requirements of the web site, the State Library helped change throughout the project. Projects with widely dis- with the search engine and user interface software server, persed participants find distance a barrier and electronic each mini-grant recipient was responsible for its own website technology, while improving the situation, doesn’t replace development and for making digital objects and images in-person participation. available to the search engine, and a centralized system of • Policy and Operational Issues: Early discussions of digital archiving was planned in addition to local retention the issues that might lead to conflict among types of institu- of digital objects. Regional scanning centers were created tions is desirable. Most important is to gain an understand- so that mini-grant participants could have local access to ing of institutional mission, values, and priorities. Beyond high quality scanners. The overall concept was to create an these policy issues, there is a range of operational issues infrastructure enabling cultural heritage institutions to gen- including the impact of web-based collections on gate rev- erate or output their own metadata (all in accord with project enue, security and watermarking, the priority placed on standards), use project equipment and project search soft- education and outreach programs for specific user catego- ware, taking advantage of project training. ries, metadata standards from the archival, museum, and What really worked?: With this emphasis on collabora- library communities; scanning standards for different kinds tion at absolutely all levels, there is a high level of trust in of images, legal issues handled differently by libraries and the project, and a growing level of confidence in the ability museums, and issues resulting from the need to select mate- to become self-sufficient. Some success stories also helped. rial to be digitized. In small projects, where there is known The technical difficulties related to interoperability have agreement on these issues, overt discussion seldom hap- been significant, or as our optimistic technical support advi- pens, but the larger the number of partners, the greater the sors are likely to say, “not trivial”. But even there, collabora- need to cover these issues upfront. tion was key to coming up with creative solutions. The task • Organizational culture: Knowledge of the working forces were really important, since they worked to create methods of the partners, including previous experience in some home-grown expertise in all institution types. Listservs working together is critical. Advanced knowledge of these for the steering committee, and the task forces also helped, cultural differences is rare, and generally happens when although they could have been set up sooner. Everyone there have been prior partnerships. New partnerships need

ACRL Tenth National Conference Academic Library/Museum Collaboration 67

to be aware of the potential for conflict and raise the matter frustrated with delays or confused by the options and issues. at the earliest point possible. • Internal project resistance: When there is internal • Commitment: Commitment by senior management objection to some aspect of the project, delays may occur from the outset of the project is critical. Agreement on project that frequently are resolved only at the level of senior man- mission and goals, as well as modification to the basic agement. premise of the project should involve senior management. • Organizational culture: One of the most frequent con- Changes in senior management may affect the ability to flicts arose from the differences in the library community’s complete the project as defined. culture of collaboration and the museum community’s cul- • Technology: While technology based projects have a ture of independence. Both partners need to see benefit to built-in level of complexity, it is important that the part- the collaboration to overcome this issue. ners develop a clear understanding on the technology in- • Differences between the library community’s values frastructure needs and how the project will be adjusted based on access to and ownership of collections, and those issues in on technology changes. the museum community, where there may be concerns about • Conflict resolution: The project should develop a method the impact on the museum of a website containing compo- for resolving conflicts if and when they arise, usually by nents of the museum holdings in digital form. While this was using some part of the project management structure. not a problem in projects where there was a predetermined • Incentives: Project planning should include a consid- set of resources to digitize, it was more of a problem the eration of incentives for participation. It is probably the larger and more complex the project became. While libraries case that while mini-grants are generally thought to be an typically list and describe everything they hold, museums do effective incentive, they seldom cover all costs. On the basis not. While libraries typically promote collections via their of the interviews, we think incentives for participation are websites, museums often promote only current exhibitions more closely associated with the values, goals, and mission with minimal image material on their websites. of the project. Pride in holdings, and the fervent desire to • Interpretation vs. identification: One of the major ar- share excellent collections is often the greatest incentive, eas of conflict is in how libraries and museums disseminate and mini-grants, equipment or other funding are only en- information on their collections. Museums will present their abling tools. collections with value added interpretative information, • Advisory Committee: An advisory or consultative while libraries generally identify the item and allow the structure is recommended enabling the project partners to user to interpret. In the web environment, a single ap- gain independent assessment and additional expertise when proach to presentation of the digital material produced needed. This is important when there is a gap between the through collaboration may not be necessary – each part- expertise of some partners compared to others. Trust is en- ner may decide to present some or all of the material in hanced when there is confidence all around in the ability of both ways. all partners to contribute effectively. Risk factors include: Conclusion • Knowledge-base: It is important to understand the As one would expect, the factors that lead to success and the knowledge level of the partners on all aspects of the project. risks associated with museum/library collaboration vary with This might be in the area of metadata, or scanning, legal each project. However, in projects where partners have prior issues or contract development. Failure to develop common experience working together, many of the risk factors had levels of understanding may lead to a lack of involvement, already been addressed. Size of project alone does not neces- buy-in on later aspects of the project, or in the long run lead sarily result in a successful project. Other factors including to a delayed or failed project. organizational culture, communication and level of commit- • Project complexity: Failure to consider the complex- ment by senior management have a greater impact on suc- ity of digitization projects in general, or a lack of informa- cess. With larger projects, the risk and success factors turn out tion on specific aspects of project management can cause to have a greater impact due to the added level of complex- delays in the project and friction among project partners. In ity. But some, such as those related to mission and values, the technology areas of the project, this is most critical par- influence the success of the project regardless of size or scope ticularly when only one partner is responsible for the tech- of the collaboration, and are related to the very essence of nology support of the project, and other partners become the academic library/museum partnership.

March 15–18, 2001, Denver, Colorado 68 Nancy Allen and Liz Bishoff

In partnerships among different types of organizations, 7. The American Association of Museums website (www.aam- especially when one of the organizations is an academic us.org) is a good place to see the activities of the AAM, and its 24 library, it is easy to overlook the long history of collabora- affiliates, which includes separate organizations for many other tion that is usually part of the assumption set for libraries, types of museums including historical societies, botanical gar- but is truly NOT part of the assumption set for historical dens, etc. The Association of Art Museum Directors societies or museums. While all cultural heritage institu- (www.aamd.org) is just one of several examples of professional tions have professional associations, they do not all engage associations for museum administrators. equally in collaborative projects as libraries have been do- 8. The AMICO website is http://www.amico.org/ ing. Libraries must step into the life of the museum partner, 9. The Museum Educational Site Licensing Project was listening to concerns and issues that arise during the plan- founded with the support of the Getty Art History Information ning phase of the project. Common solutions, based on an Program. More information is available at http:// understanding of the traditions and organizational culture www.fmch.ucla.edu/MESL/mesl.htm. of all partners are critical. 10. http://www.cimi.org/ is the site describing all the CIMI All projects had some issue related to technology. The projects, including development of and advocacy for museum stan- issues range from having adequate support to develop web dards in technology arenas. pages, to dependency on one partner for development or 11. The Museum Computer Network (www.mcn.edu) is, to software modification, to inadequate knowledge on the part quote its website, “a nonprofit organization of professionals dedi- of partners. All projects demonstrated an ability to over- cated to fostering the cultural aims of museums through the use come these issues through creative problem solving. of computer technologies. We serve individuals and institutions As all these projects involved digitization of primary wishing to improve their means of developing, managing, and resource materials, it required partners to develop new conveying museum information through the use of automation. knowledge bases. The approaches for developing the knowl- We support cooperative efforts that enable museums to be more edge bases were different indicating that no one approach is effective at creating and disseminating cultural and scientific knowl- best. What is demonstrated is that projects must do some edge as represented by their collections and related documenta- level of training even when partners take responsibility for tion.” The MCN has an annual conference. specific aspects. 12. See Shepherd, John. “A Review of Research Priorities and All the projects we interviewed stated that museum/ Practice for the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council academic library partnerships lead to many positive expe- (MLAC).” The full report is posted at http://www.culture.gov.uk/ riences, and pave the way for advances that are in the pub- heritage/shepherd_report.html. Also, the description of the Eu- lic good. The mission of the IMLS is truly confirmed ropean Union effort written by Lorcan Dempsey (Director of the through analysis of these projects, and the motto of the UK Office for Library and Information Networking, UKOLN) and Colorado Digitization Project is one that could be high- quoted above is found at http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue22/ lighted in every library/museum collaborative: Together, dempsey/. The full reference is above, in footnote 1. We Enrich Lives. 13. The Pacific Northwest project involved the University of Washington Library, the Eastern Washington State Historical Notes Society, and the Museum of History and Industry, in Seattle. The 1. Dempsey, Lorcan. “Scientific, Industrial, and Cultural Heri- Everglades project involved the University of Miami Library, tage: a shared approach: a research framework for digital libraries, Florida Atlantic University, and the Historical Museum of South museums and archives.” Ariadne 22, January 2000. Florida. The Ohio River Valley project involved the University of 2. Ibid. Chicago Libraries and the Filson Club Historical Society in Louis- 3. Ibid. ville, Kentucky. 4. Ibid. 14. Full information on the IMLS grant opportunities involv- 5. Ibid. ing collaboration between libraries and museums is available at the 6. A good overview of the varying approaches to metadata IMLS website, www.imls.gov. Previous grants are also listed. is found in Shenk, Carol, Visual Resource Documentation Schemes: Standardization in Museums, Libraries, and Archives. It is available at http://www.speakeasy.org/~cshenk/ImageStandards/ ImageStandards.htm.

ACRL Tenth National Conference Academic Library/Museum Collaboration 69

Appendix A

Discussion Questions for the telephone interviews 1. Does your project have a mission or vision that is consistent with the mission or vision of the institutions involved in the collaboration? How did you create a common mission? What issues were raised relating to the mission or vision? How did you work to create a common set of values that worked for both library and museum partners?

2. What management model did you use for your collaborative project? (Examples might be a central office, commit- tees or task forces, an advisory board, or combinations of these.) How did the model effect the collaborative?

3. What communication methods did you use for your project? (Examples might be face to face meetings, emails or distribution lists, threaded discussions, or a consultation model.) Were they effective?

4. How did you develop standards and best practices for your project? (For instance, how did you determine what metadata standards and practices to use for digital objects?) Was the approach effective?

5. What motivated partners to participate in your project? (Examples might be mini-grants, training, or prestige.)

6. How did the project participants decide what collections to choose for digitization? What issues emerged in determining what collections to select? Were issues related to security, or ownership, or rights (related to selection of collections) addressed? If so, how did the collaborative address them?

7. What technology infrastructure does your project use? Talk a bit about hardware, software, networks, and interoperability among partners. What was the assignment of responsibility related to technical infrastructure?

8. What issues emerged related to the partner user communities? What issues related to similarities and/or differ- ences among those communities?

9. Did you discuss service philosophies among partners, such as access to collections, information services for collec- tions, or resource sharing possibilities? How did service philosophies effect the development of the collaborative?

10. How would you characterize the knowledge level of the project partners on digitization project management issues such as metadata, scanning, digital archiving, search software, or other technical issues? How did you address any differences in knowledge levels?

11. Would you do another library-museum collaborative project? What would you do differently if you did another library-museum collaborative project?

March 15–18, 2001, Denver, Colorado