This document summarizes a presentation on a study that investigated the motivations for institutions to migrate their digital asset management systems (DAMS). The study found that the top motivations were related to institutions wanting more control over content management, metadata standards, extensibility and customization of their systems. Some institutions migrated for improved third party support, while results were inconclusive on motivations related to digital preservation. The study provided insights but was limited and further research is needed on institutional migrations.

1. The Evolving Repository Landscape:
Identifying Motivations for Library DAMS Migration
Ayla Stein
Metadata Librarian
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Santi Thompson
Head of Digital Repository Services
University of Houston Libraries

2. Presentation Overview
◈ Background
◈ Literature Review
◈ Methodology
◈ Results
◈ Discussion
◈ Limitations & Next Steps
◈ Conclusion

3. Why do this study?

4. Research Questions
◈ What motivations prompt
institutions to migrate from
one DAMS to another?
◈ In what directions are
institutions moving? For
example, are institutions
moving from proprietary
systems to open source
systems?

5. Literature Review
◈ Selecting Initial DAMS
◈ Policy & Planning
◈ Evaluation Criteria
◈ Needs Assessments
◈ Case studies on DAMS Migration
◈ Dissatisfactions
◈ Wants & Needs

6. Methodology
◈ Eligibility
◈ Evaluation topics
◈ Topic selection
◈ Survey design

7. Eligibility
◈ Respondents have
completed the migration
process from the “Old DAMS"
to the "New DAMS“
◈ Respondents are currently
migrating from the “Old
DAMS” to the “New DAMS“
◈ Respondents have selected
a “New DAMS” but have not
started the migration process

8. Evaluation Topics
◈ Implementation & Day-to-
Day Costs
◈ User Administration
◈ Organizational Viability
◈ Technical Support
◈ System Administration
◈ Extensibility
◈ Information Retrieval &
Access
◈ Content Management
◈ Preservation
◈ User Interface Customization
◈ Interoperability
◈ Reputation
◈ Metadata Standards

9. Survey Design
◈ Question Formats
◈ Demographic information
◈ System Movement
◈ Selection & Ranking of
Motivations

10. Results Overview
◈ Survey Demographics
◈ Top 5 Topics
◈ Priority Rankings
◈ Highlights from Top 5 Topics -
Visualized

15. Priority Rank
◈ Rank 1: Implementation, Preservation, Extensibility
◈ Rank 2: User Customization, Content Management, Technical Support
◈ Rank 3: Content Management, Extensibility
◈ Rank 4: Content Management, Preservation, Information Retrieval, System
Administration
◈ Rank 5: Metadata Standards, Technical Support, User Interface,
Interoperability

16. Content Management Results

17. Metadata Results

18. Extensibility Results

19. Preservation Results

20. UI Customization Results

21. Technical Support Results

22. Discussion
◈ What needs and/or factors
prompt institutions to migrate?
◈ What “direction” are
institutions migrating?
◈ Overall theme

23. Self Control
◈ Content Management: Scalability
◈ Metadata: Multiple Schema &
Flexibility
◈ Extensibility: Local Development
◈ UI Customization: Local Design
Decisions

24. Third Party Support
◈ Technical Support: a role for
governing organizations,
vendors, and communities

25. Inconclusive
◈ Digital Preservation:
Contradictory Results

26. System Movement

27. Limitations &
Next Steps
◈ Limitations
◈ Future Research
◈ Institutional/ Data
Repositories

29. Works Cited
◈ California Digital Library, “Glossary” (2014) Retrieved March 30, 2015 from
http://www.cdlib.org/gateways/technology/glossary.html

30. Images Cited
1. Goydenko Liudmila / Getty images
2. By Kathryn Greenhill [CC BY-SA 2.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)],
via Wikimedia Commons
3. David Garwol / EyeEm / Getty Images
4. Hong Li / Getty Images
5. Alex Slobodkin / Getty Images
6. John_Woodcock / Getty Images
7. Filo / Getty Images
8. JamieB / Getty Images
9. Epoxydude / Getty Images
10. Mutlu Kurtbas / Getty Images
11. Yagi Studio / Getty Images
12. Martin Barraud / Getty Images
13. JDawnInk / Getty Images
14. Charts, graphs, and all other content in presentation created by Ayla Stein and Santi
Thompson and is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license.