SPEC Kit 325: Digital Preservation  · 71
Additional Comments
Assurances of long-term support and funding for preservation, appropriate security.
I have left this section blank for the following reasons. First, we have not adequately tested for willingness, as our
system is not yet implemented as a service. (We plan to implement this as an internal service to the library first and
expand it to the university later). Second, the question makes this sound like a user-submitted model (it may not be so
intended) similar to IRs. We will try to offer the service where it is perceived as needed by stakeholders, but not on a
self-submission model.
IP issues/concerns, time to participate.
Lack of understanding of the benefits and available Creative Commons licensing models.
Money, apathy, organization.
More than anything, it seems to be an awareness issue. In cases when we have engaged the academic units or data
centers, there is willingness and even eagerness in some instances to deposit content within the library’s evolving digital
preservation infrastructure.
Our digital preservation infrastructure is not developed enough for us to be able to propose digital preservation services
to other units on campus. So we are not sure what their response would be.
Takes up too much time.
Barriers to Investing in Digital Preservation
39. Please briefly describe up to three barriers to investing in the preservation of digital content for
your library. N=3
Lack of expertise/understanding of full scope of what “preservation” means in a digital context (and a sense of it
being overwhelming). Conveying a proper sense of urgency to political stakeholders (municipal government). Proper
management/governance structure to facilitate a digital preservation strategy.
No clear path forward.
Staff with training and experience. Funding for hardware/software and staff with training and experience. Buy-in from
university administration and faculty who have content.
Previous Page Next Page