14 · SPEC Kit 292
top three reasons are to increase global visibility
of, preserve, and provide free access to the institu-
tion’s scholarship. These goals are followed closely
by a desire to collect and organize the institution’s
scholarship in a single system (implementers, 89%
planners, 83%). Thirty-eight percent of implement-
ers and 47% of planners were responding to re-
quests for an IR from faculty, staff, and students.
Among the other motivating factors was a desire to
“Change scholarly communication by demonstrat-
ing alternative mechanisms,” “Provide a solution
to researcher’s data management and data pub-
lication needs,” and “Position the university as a
leader in managing digital assets.”
All respondents, implementers and planners
alike, indicated that the library has been a driv-
ing force in the creation of or planning for an IR.
Information technology and academic departments
advocated for an IR about equally but trailed the
library significantly. The administration was an ad-
vocate at only about a quarter of the responding
institutions.
A wide range of academic units were spe-
cifically identified as advocating IRs, such as
Aerospace Engineering, Anthropology, Art,
Biology, Computer Science, Environmental Studies,
Geography, Journalism and Mass Communication,
Law, Mathematics, Medicine, Political Science, and
Romance Languages. It should be noted that sev-
eral respondents indicated Graduate Studies or
Graduate School Services, with the latter unit ex-
plicitly mentioning an interest in electronic theses
and dissertations (ETDs).
A variety of other areas on campus were also
identified as advocates, such as the Center for
Teaching &Learning Excellence, Honors Program,
Institute for Policy Studies, Knowledge Media
Design Institute, Senate Library Committee,
University Archives, and University Press.
Planning, Implementation, and Assessment
Thirty percent of the implementers engaged in
planning for six months to a year. Twenty-four
percent took from one to six months and an equal
number took more than a year to complete the
planning stage. The planning process is ongoing
for 19%. Only one implementer spent less than a
month on the planning stage. More than half of the
planners report that this stage is ongoing. For most
of the others planning started within the last year.
Roughly a third of the implementers needed
less than six months for the implementation phase.
Another third took six months to one year to com-
plete the process. Only two needed more than a
year. For most of the remaining implementers, that
task is ongoing. While almost half of the planners
report that they have not reached the implementa-
tion phase, the others have either recently entered
it or are simultaneously planning and implement-
ing their IRs.
While more than a third of the implementers
have not reached the initial assessment phase, yet,
for many (43%) assessment is ongoing. A small
number (8 or 23%) have completed some assess-
ment. The majority of planners are not ready to
assess their IR, but a few report some assessment
activity.
Most institutions have conducted or will con-
duct a pilot project before making their IR pub-
lic (implementers, 73% planners, 86%). The pilot
project serves multiple purposes. The top two are
to determine potential difficulties or problems
and plan contingencies and to test processes or
procedures. Slightly less important are determin-
ing staffing needs (59% and 80%), evaluating and
testing IR system options (41% and 80%), estimat-
ing costs (41% and 72%), and determining needed
material resources (37% and 76%). Other purposes
include testing campus interest, building support,
and seeding the repository.
Staffing
The overwhelming majority of respondents have
appointed or will appoint a project group for plan-
ning and implementation (implementers, 92%
planners, 93%). Planning groups range from 2 to
top three reasons are to increase global visibility
of, preserve, and provide free access to the institu-
tion’s scholarship. These goals are followed closely
by a desire to collect and organize the institution’s
scholarship in a single system (implementers, 89%
planners, 83%). Thirty-eight percent of implement-
ers and 47% of planners were responding to re-
quests for an IR from faculty, staff, and students.
Among the other motivating factors was a desire to
“Change scholarly communication by demonstrat-
ing alternative mechanisms,” “Provide a solution
to researcher’s data management and data pub-
lication needs,” and “Position the university as a
leader in managing digital assets.”
All respondents, implementers and planners
alike, indicated that the library has been a driv-
ing force in the creation of or planning for an IR.
Information technology and academic departments
advocated for an IR about equally but trailed the
library significantly. The administration was an ad-
vocate at only about a quarter of the responding
institutions.
A wide range of academic units were spe-
cifically identified as advocating IRs, such as
Aerospace Engineering, Anthropology, Art,
Biology, Computer Science, Environmental Studies,
Geography, Journalism and Mass Communication,
Law, Mathematics, Medicine, Political Science, and
Romance Languages. It should be noted that sev-
eral respondents indicated Graduate Studies or
Graduate School Services, with the latter unit ex-
plicitly mentioning an interest in electronic theses
and dissertations (ETDs).
A variety of other areas on campus were also
identified as advocates, such as the Center for
Teaching &Learning Excellence, Honors Program,
Institute for Policy Studies, Knowledge Media
Design Institute, Senate Library Committee,
University Archives, and University Press.
Planning, Implementation, and Assessment
Thirty percent of the implementers engaged in
planning for six months to a year. Twenty-four
percent took from one to six months and an equal
number took more than a year to complete the
planning stage. The planning process is ongoing
for 19%. Only one implementer spent less than a
month on the planning stage. More than half of the
planners report that this stage is ongoing. For most
of the others planning started within the last year.
Roughly a third of the implementers needed
less than six months for the implementation phase.
Another third took six months to one year to com-
plete the process. Only two needed more than a
year. For most of the remaining implementers, that
task is ongoing. While almost half of the planners
report that they have not reached the implementa-
tion phase, the others have either recently entered
it or are simultaneously planning and implement-
ing their IRs.
While more than a third of the implementers
have not reached the initial assessment phase, yet,
for many (43%) assessment is ongoing. A small
number (8 or 23%) have completed some assess-
ment. The majority of planners are not ready to
assess their IR, but a few report some assessment
activity.
Most institutions have conducted or will con-
duct a pilot project before making their IR pub-
lic (implementers, 73% planners, 86%). The pilot
project serves multiple purposes. The top two are
to determine potential difficulties or problems
and plan contingencies and to test processes or
procedures. Slightly less important are determin-
ing staffing needs (59% and 80%), evaluating and
testing IR system options (41% and 80%), estimat-
ing costs (41% and 72%), and determining needed
material resources (37% and 76%). Other purposes
include testing campus interest, building support,
and seeding the repository.
Staffing
The overwhelming majority of respondents have
appointed or will appoint a project group for plan-
ning and implementation (implementers, 92%
planners, 93%). Planning groups range from 2 to
