Manchester University IR Project Blog Sharing news, opinions and general information about the University of Manchester's Institutional Repository (IR) Project.

In Part 1 of this series, I finished with a question, "who are we and what are we trying to achieve?".

This is my answer.

Who are we [The University of Manchester]?

The University of Manchester is a large and complex organisation.

The University employees around 11,000 staff. Of these, 3,500 are academic staff and 2,000 contract research staff. The number of registered postgraduate students is around 8,400 (3,600 research, 4,800 taught), with 4,000 students graduating annually (900 research, 3,100 taught)

Our research encompasses a wide range of disciplines, including biomedical and life sciences, engineering, physical and theoretical sciences, the arts, social sciences and business studies. See our Research activities for a comprehensive list.

The University is structured into 4 major academic faculties. Faculties are organised into 22 academic schools. These academic departments are complemented by 11 research institutes, which cross academic boundaries and incorporate strengths into core research priorities.

The University further supports a range of cultural assets, including Jodrell Bank Science Centre, Manchester Museum and Whitworth Art Gallery.

Research, teaching and learning activities are supported by a range of administrative services. Of particular relevance, are John Rylands University Library and the Information Technology Services.

What are we [the Institutional Repository Project] trying to achieve?

Our Institutional Repository (IR) Project is well defined. It has agreed aims, scope and outline plan (see Project scope and deliverables and Project outline plan).

The Project aims to sustain and enhance research reputations by establishing institutional repository services. We consider a repository as a place where individuals can store, manage, preserve and disseminate their scholarly work.

Currently, we can only estimate the types and numbers of scholarly work University authors create annually. The Project aims to support research works in four main categories. Our current estimates for these are.

• academic publications: ~7,000 - 11,000
• theses and dissertations: 900 PhD theses, 3,100 Masters dissertations
• grey literature: probably <5,000
• audio/visual materials: probably <2,000

Hence our best guess is, University authors create around 15,000 to 20,000 pieces of scholarly (research) work annually.

Project deliverables are,

• D1. Stakeholder engagement and awareness
• D2. An Institutional Repository Services Support Network
• D3. A set of repository technologies
• D4. A governance and sustainability plan
• D5. A functional institutional repository

The Project is well supported (three staff for 2 years) and, critically, benefits from senior management buy-in. The Project has an engaged community of stakeholders represented by an Academic Sponsor, a Steering Group, an ETD Working Group, a Technical Advisory Group and 9 early adopters (see Project structure).

Conclusion ... we have the technology

In summary, the University is large, complex and well-resourced. Our Institutional Repository Project is well-supported and clearly defined.

What does this all mean in terms of choosing repository software?

We need sustainable software. With senior management buy-in, the IR Project is a window of opportunity. It represents a long-term committment both in terms of supporting the University's research community and preserving digital scholarly works.

We need scalable software. Software will need to support a significant number and wide diversity of digital scholarly work. We have a large user base, with a wide range of expectations and knowledge.

Resource availability and technical expertise are NOT obstacles, within reason. The University has extensive in-house support services that are expert in a range of subjects and technologies. We have a well-resourced IR Project with a defined scope. Saying that, our choice needs to be sensitive to resource usage and existing technical preferences.

We need software that is sensitive to future requirements. Our focus is supporting scholarly communication and specifically research outputs. We have excluded experimental data and teaching and learning materials, both of which are forms of scholarly work. It is sensible that, if possible, we choose software that could accommodate these in some future form.

In the words of Oscar Goldman from the 1970's TV series, The Six Million Dollar Man, "... we have the technology".