Institutional Repositories · 15
26 members but most are fairly large. The mean
number of group members for the implement-
ers is 7.8 and the median is 6 for the planners the
mean is 9.1 and the median is 7. Both implementers
and planners reported a few groups larger than 15
members.
How library staff are selected to work on an IR
implementation varied across the respondents. The
top criteria for group members is their functional
expertise (94% and 92%), particularly with technol-
ogy, software, systems, and metadata. Managerial/
supervisory expertise is the second criteria for
implementers (62%) but only the fifth for plan-
ners (35%). Planners report that representation of
a particular constituency, such as archives, IT, or
faculty, is more important (81%). Being a liaison to
a particular stakeholding group, especially faculty,
and prior successful project experience are impor-
tant criteria for a majority of respondents. The least
important criteria is workload (15% and 31%), but
among the other criteria reported was a willingness
to take on additional work.
Survey respondents identified up to four units
that were major players in the institution’s ongoing
IR operations. They indicated the unit name, its re-
sponsibilities, the title of the unit manager, the title
of the person that the unit reported to, the number
of individuals in each staff category (i.e., librarian,
other professional, support staff, student assistant,
and other), and total FTE in each category.
The data reveal that libraries and their staff are
leading the campus IR effort and providing the ma-
jority of staffing support for it. There are no campus
IT reporting lines for the first units, though there is
one joint library-IT reporting line. A small number
are found in the second to fourth units and they are
often performing server support and similar func-
tions. Out of 58 identified first units, there is only
one non-library unit—a graduate studies office.
By far, the most frequent types of units reported
for the first unit were digital library/initiatives or
systems units within libraries. Also in the list were
administrative units, archives, and research or
technical services.
It is clear that IRs are a library-wide effort in-
volving many different departments. Aside from
technical support units, the lists of second to fourth
units includes archives, cataloging, branch librar-
ies, collection development, instruction, metadata,
preservation, reference, and special collections.
Most of these units report to upper levels of man-
agement, such as a library dean or associate/assis-
tant director.
If the mean FTE values for each of the four
units are added together, the average number of
staff working on an implementers’ IR is 28.1. The
breakdown by staff category is 7.4 librarians, 7.3
other professional staff, 9.5 support staff, and 3.9
students. The average number of staff working on
a planners’ IR is 61.2. The breakdown by staff cat-
egory is 8.8 librarians, 20.8 other professional, 22.2
support staff, and 9.4 students.
Budget
Only 44% of implementers report having a dedicat-
ed budget for start-up costs 48% have a dedicated
budget for ongoing operations. Half of the planners
anticipate having a dedicated budget for start-up
costs and 40% expect to have a dedicated budget
for ongoing operations. Many of the respondents
who do not have a dedicated budget explained
that costs for staff, equipment, etc. were either sup-
ported by general library operations already repre-
sented within the library’s budget, or that existing
budget lines were reallocated, or that a consortium
or other third party absorbed the costs.
Implementers report a range of start-up costs
from $8,000 to $1,800,000, with a mean of $182,550
and a median of $45,000. Planners report a range
of $12,000 to $160,000, with a mean of $81,667
and a median of $75,000. The range for ongoing
operations budgets for implementers is $8,600 to
$500,000, with a mean of $113,543 and median of
$41,750. Only two planners knew their budgets for
ongoing operations—$100,000 and $133,000, with a
mean and median of $116,500.
The distribution of both start-up and ongoing
budgets shows concentrations of responses at the
26 members but most are fairly large. The mean
number of group members for the implement-
ers is 7.8 and the median is 6 for the planners the
mean is 9.1 and the median is 7. Both implementers
and planners reported a few groups larger than 15
members.
How library staff are selected to work on an IR
implementation varied across the respondents. The
top criteria for group members is their functional
expertise (94% and 92%), particularly with technol-
ogy, software, systems, and metadata. Managerial/
supervisory expertise is the second criteria for
implementers (62%) but only the fifth for plan-
ners (35%). Planners report that representation of
a particular constituency, such as archives, IT, or
faculty, is more important (81%). Being a liaison to
a particular stakeholding group, especially faculty,
and prior successful project experience are impor-
tant criteria for a majority of respondents. The least
important criteria is workload (15% and 31%), but
among the other criteria reported was a willingness
to take on additional work.
Survey respondents identified up to four units
that were major players in the institution’s ongoing
IR operations. They indicated the unit name, its re-
sponsibilities, the title of the unit manager, the title
of the person that the unit reported to, the number
of individuals in each staff category (i.e., librarian,
other professional, support staff, student assistant,
and other), and total FTE in each category.
The data reveal that libraries and their staff are
leading the campus IR effort and providing the ma-
jority of staffing support for it. There are no campus
IT reporting lines for the first units, though there is
one joint library-IT reporting line. A small number
are found in the second to fourth units and they are
often performing server support and similar func-
tions. Out of 58 identified first units, there is only
one non-library unit—a graduate studies office.
By far, the most frequent types of units reported
for the first unit were digital library/initiatives or
systems units within libraries. Also in the list were
administrative units, archives, and research or
technical services.
It is clear that IRs are a library-wide effort in-
volving many different departments. Aside from
technical support units, the lists of second to fourth
units includes archives, cataloging, branch librar-
ies, collection development, instruction, metadata,
preservation, reference, and special collections.
Most of these units report to upper levels of man-
agement, such as a library dean or associate/assis-
tant director.
If the mean FTE values for each of the four
units are added together, the average number of
staff working on an implementers’ IR is 28.1. The
breakdown by staff category is 7.4 librarians, 7.3
other professional staff, 9.5 support staff, and 3.9
students. The average number of staff working on
a planners’ IR is 61.2. The breakdown by staff cat-
egory is 8.8 librarians, 20.8 other professional, 22.2
support staff, and 9.4 students.
Budget
Only 44% of implementers report having a dedicat-
ed budget for start-up costs 48% have a dedicated
budget for ongoing operations. Half of the planners
anticipate having a dedicated budget for start-up
costs and 40% expect to have a dedicated budget
for ongoing operations. Many of the respondents
who do not have a dedicated budget explained
that costs for staff, equipment, etc. were either sup-
ported by general library operations already repre-
sented within the library’s budget, or that existing
budget lines were reallocated, or that a consortium
or other third party absorbed the costs.
Implementers report a range of start-up costs
from $8,000 to $1,800,000, with a mean of $182,550
and a median of $45,000. Planners report a range
of $12,000 to $160,000, with a mean of $81,667
and a median of $75,000. The range for ongoing
operations budgets for implementers is $8,600 to
$500,000, with a mean of $113,543 and median of
$41,750. Only two planners knew their budgets for
ongoing operations—$100,000 and $133,000, with a
mean and median of $116,500.
The distribution of both start-up and ongoing
budgets shows concentrations of responses at the
