Downloaded 12 times
Uploaded bylibrarianrafia
Memorandum of Understanding Workshop: Creating a Process for Successful Digital Collaboration
This document outlines a workshop focused on creating memorandums of understanding (MOUs) for successful digital collaboration among librarians and external partners. It highlights common challenges, such as unrealistic expectations and librarians' tendencies to overcommit. The document also provides a comprehensive MOU workbook with templates, workflow instructions, and guidelines for estimating institutional support.
More Related Content
Similar to Memorandum of Understanding Workshop: Creating a Process for Successful Digital Collaboration
More from librarianrafia
Memorandum of Understanding Workshop: Creating a Process for Successful Digital Collaboration
- 1.
- 2. About Us Rafia MirzaDigital Humanities Librarian @LibrarianRafia | rafia@uta.edu Peace Ossom Williamson Research Data Librarian @123POW| peace@uta.edu Brett D. Currier Director of Scholarly Communications @BrettDCurrier| brett.currier@uta.edu
- 4.
- 5. National Theme Traditionally, librariansengaged in transactional service. Many of us are beginning to engage in collaborative work.
- 6. External partners mayhave • Expectations that are higher than possible • Expectations that technology does not allow • Expectations that do not coincide with strategic priorities • Expectations that are unfair
- 7. Librarians tend tohave • Inclinations toward saying “Yes” • Inclinations toward gold plating • Inclinations toward not expecting shared credit • Inclinations toward providing seamless (invisible) service
- 8.
- 9. Workbook Contents • Introduction MOUDocuments • Workflow & Instructions • General Template & Instructions • Estimate of Institutional Support & Instructions MOUs for Standardized Projects • Systematic Reviews • Open Access eJournal Hosting & Publishing
- 10.
- 11. Template Contents Basic BuildingBlocks • Purpose and Scope • Definitions • Background • External Funding statement • Parties’ Responsibilities • Ownership statement • Signature and Date Optional Additions • Technology Limitations • Project Continuation Plans • Any Contingencies • Mutually Agreed Upon Workflows • Archiving and Preservation Plans • Anything else
- 12. Template Contents Addenda • Collaborator’sBill of Rights • Project Recommendations • Upfront Costs • Estimate of Institutional Support • Others
- 13. Estimate of InstitutionalSupport Name Job Title Expertise Hours Inst. Rate Market Rate Inst. Total Market Total Total Description of Hardware/Software Institution Cost Market Cost Institution Total Market Total Total
- 14. Workbook Contents • Introduction MOUDocuments • Workflow & Instructions • General Template & Instructions • Estimate of Institutional Support & Instructions MOUs for Standardized Projects • Systematic Reviews • Open Access eJournal Hosting & Publishing
- 15.
Editor's Notes
- #4 Rafia
- #5 Rafia :SPEC Kit, Blogs, etc. That Camps
- #6 Rafia: You agree on blueprint before you commit resources, so you both know you are building a ranch house, and one partner is not expecting a mansion, while you think you are making a birdhouse. / Make service visible, turn it into collaboration: /Make the amount of work a project will take visible before it is begun /Accidental Commitments/ Positive Experiences b/c of MOU use./ Clarity of roles, process, timelines, and expected outcomes for all parties Service: http://literaturegeek.com/2016/02/28/DHjobtalk/ http://acrl.ala.org/dh/2013/06/19/in-service-a-further-provocation-on-digital-humanities-research-in-libraries/ Whole issue: is everyone has different expectations, so this whole process is about making sure all partners are on the same page For a long time libraries had established workflows AND liaisons tended to work alone, but now so many changes, and doing many types of projects you had not done before (so hard to judge how long they will take )
- #7 Rafia: NOTE Specific examples. 1. 10 year project timeline want to do in 1 year. 2. Omeka (web vs. server install. 500 mb vs. Server space) 3. Collection vs. Project area focus/Scope 4. Timeline
- #8 Rafia
- #9 During and after implementation: Attribution Publication Conference presentation Grant application Funding allocation Disruption
- #10 Overview Each template that you might want to use has been added as a word document so you can pull it out to edit and make changes.
- #11 Phase I - Library stakeholders: Talk to their supervisor. Consulted b/c long term plans of that department or the library Phase II – Timelines/ Software Needs Phase III - No major substantive change, getting final approval/sign off Phase IV: No work started before now, documents in one place can become a template for your own institution
- #12 Rafia
- #15 Talk briefly about how we have covered much of the workbook and that as you continue with certain projects, you may developed MOU templates for these as we have with systematic reviews and open access journal hosting and publishing
- #16 Questions? #utamou