ERISprojectplanv1 0 (Web Version)

Project Acronym: ERIS Contact: James Toon
Version:1.0 Release Date:11/8/2009
Project Information
Project Acronym ERIS
Project Title Enhancing Repository Infrastructure in Scotland
Start Date 1/04/2009 End Date 31/03/2011
Lead Institution University of Edinburgh on behalf of SCURL (Scottish Confederation of
University and Research Libraries)
Project Director
[deleted from web version – contact James Toon for details]
Project Manager & Name: James Toon

contact details Position: ERIS Project manager, University of Edinburgh
Email: james.toon@ed.ac.uk
Tel: 0131 650 3850; Fax: 0131 650 3380
Address: 5 Buccleuch Place, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8
9LJ
Partner Institutions Primary Partners: University of Edinburgh (lead institution); CDLR
(Centre for Digital Library Research, University of Strathclyde); DCC
(Digital Curation Centre); National Library of Scotland; OCLC / RLG; SAC
(Scottish Agricultural College); SCURL (Scottish Confederation of
University and Research Libraries); SLIC (Scottish Library and
Information Council); University of Glasgow;
Secondary Partners: Research pools: SAGES (Scottish Alliance for
Geoscience, Environment and Society), SICSA (Scottish Informatics and
Computer Science Alliance); SIRE (Scottish Institute for Research in
Economics); SULSA (Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance)
SCURL members: Heriot-Watt University; RGU (The Robert Gordon
University); UWS (University of the West of Scotland); University of
Aberdeen; University of Dundee; University of St Andrews; University of
Stirling; The project also enjoys the full support of Universities Scotland.
Project Web URL TBC
Programme Name (and Information Environment Programme 2009-11
number)
Programme Manager(s)
Document Name
Document Title Project Plan
Reporting Period N/A
Author(s) & project role James Toon
Date Filename 20090715-
ERIS02projectplanv0-9.doc
URL if document is posted on project web site
Page 1 of 44
Document title: ERIS Project Plan Last updated: 11/8/2009
Access  Project and JISC internal  General dissemination
Document History
Version Date Comments
0.1 Initial Draft 14/05/2009 Initial draft for comment
0.2 Second 02/06/2009 Revisions following initial reviews
Draft
0.3 04/06/2009 Additional content relating to work packages
0.4 15/06/2009 Minor edit following PMT team review
0.5 24/06/2009 Inclusion of WP detail from DCC
0.6 10/07/2009 Inclusion of WP1 detail from UoG
0.7 13/07/2009 Inclusion of WP5 detail from UoE
0.8 14/07/2009 Inclusion of revised WP2 detail and amendments to main body
text (mainly to reduce volume)
0.9 15/07/2009 Significant revisions to text in project outputs, governance,
evaluation and dissemination sections
1.0 17/07/2009 First release for project team review
1.1 21/07/2009 Minor review following comments from DCC (missing
deliverable in section 4 WP2)
1.2 24/07/2009 Comments from Simon Bains
1.0 Release 11/08/2009 Release to JISC following Delivery Team approval.
1.0 Release 14/08/2009 Release prepared for website – minus budgetary details
(web)
Page 2 of 44
Document title: JISC Project Plan 22683742.doc

Table of Contents
Overview of Project......................................................................................................... ...................4

1. Background................................................................................................................................ .4
2. Aims and Objectives............................................................................................... ....................5
3. Overall Approach..................................................................................................... ...................7
4. Project Outputs.............................................................................................................. .............8
5. Project Outcomes (Vision and expected benefits).............................................. ......................10
6. Stakeholder Analysis........................................................................................................... ......11
7. Risk Analysis.................................................................................................................... .........11
8. Standards.......................................................................................................... .......................12
9. Technical Development...................................................................................................... .......12
10. Intellectual Property Rights......................................................................................... ............13
Project Resources............................................................................................................... .............13
11. Project Partners................................................................................................ ......................13
12. Project Management.......................................................................................................... .....13
13. Roles and Responsibilities................................................................................................ ......14
14. Programme Support.................................................................................... ...........................15
15. Budget.............................................................................................................. ......................15
Detailed Project Planning.................................................................................................. ...............16
15. Project work packages....................................................................................................... .....16
16. Evaluation Plans ..................................................................................................... ...............16
17. Quality Plan.................................................................................................... ........................18
18. Dissemination Plan.................................................................................................. ...............18
19. Exit and Sustainability Plans............................................................................................ .......20
Appendix A. Project Budget......................................................................................................... .....22
Appendix B. Work packages.................................................................................... ........................23
Project Schedule......................................................................................................................... ..23
Detail Work package Activities............................................................................................. .........25
Page 3 of 44

Overview of Project
1. Background
The IRIScotland projects1 have produced two pilot services – the IRIScotland cross-repository (OAI
PMH harvester/search) service2 to aggregate research outputs in Scottish repositories and a hosting
service based at the National Library of Scotland (NLS) for institutions that do not wish to set up their
own research repositories – thus successfully demonstrating the value and practicality of the
distributed environment for the development of a research repository infrastructure at regional level.
The projects have also produced a Repository Toolkit for Use by Researchers and Institutions3, a
Draft Metadata Agreement for Institutional Repositories4 and, through the formation of the IRIScotland
Council, a broad grouping of stakeholders responsible for overseeing the future development of the
service. These achievements are testaments to a long-standing tradition of expertise-building
collaboration between HEIs across Scotland in the field of research information, further strengthened
by the work carried out – within the framework of the IRIScotland projects – with the NLS. The NLS
has now agreed to develop and sustain the two central elements of the IRIScotland infrastructure5 –
i.e. the above-mentioned pilot harvester/search and hosting services – on a long-term basis for the
interests of Scotland as a whole.
The IRIScotland projects have shown that top-down advocacy, guidelines and the development of
standards, while essential, are not sufficient to engage researchers with repositories and therefore
create the critical mass that repositories need – both at institutional and cross-repository levels – to
achieve recognition amongst the research communities. HE institutions around the world are
beginning to mandate their academics to deposit their research outputs in Open Access institutional
repositories. In Scotland the movement is rapidly gathering momentum partly as a result of the
Scottish Declaration on Open Access and the work of IRIScotland, but it is still the case that only a
minority of Scottish HEIs has so far introduced mandatory open access policies6. Furthermore, to
translate these policies into reality, Scottish HEIs need to develop researcher-friendly repositories that
fit neatly in the research workflow. The success of the cross-repository service is reliant on their ability
to do so.
It is increasingly the view that to achieve high deposit levels in repositories there is a need to work in
close collaboration with researchers and research managers in order to reach a better understanding
of how repositories fit into the research workflow and how added-value functionality may contribute to
generating significantly higher – or as required by mandatory institutional policies – maximum deposit
rates. ‘Attending to the “Demand Side”’ – in other words ‘the development of high-value repository
services… [that] requires understanding user needs and capabilities’– has recently been identified in
an ARL report7 as one of the key issues facing digital repositories. Repository services must be
matched to the needs of researchers to ensure they offer real incentives to deposit. For example,
evidence having already shown that researchers would value a service helping them to keep their
personal bibliographies up to date, this could be set up by the repositories in such a way that the
updating would only occur in conjunction with the deposit of a new research output. Other added-
value services may include tools for group work and version control at file level – particularly useful for
1
The original two-year project funded within the framework of the JISC Call for Projects in Digital
Repositories (JISC Circular 03/05) was followed by a five-month extension completed in August 2008.
2
See at http://cdlr.strath.ac.uk/iriscotland/.
3
See at http://cdlr.strath.ac.uk/iriscotland/iristk/index.htm .
4
See at http://cdlr.strath.ac.uk/pubs/dawsona/IRISMetadataDraft.pdf.
5
The IRIScotland Council is currently discussing the possibility of using a different brand name for the
service or even different names for each of its components. For the sake of convenience, however,
the service as a whole and its underpinning infrastructure will be in this proposal referred to as
IRIScotland.
6
Napier University and the Universities of Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Stirling and Strathclyde have
already introduced mandatory open access policies.
7
Association of Research Libraries (ARL). The Research Library’s Role in Digital Repository Services.
January 2009. p. 8. See at http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/repository-services-report.pdf.
Page 4 of 44

research pools –, facilities for the deposit of other types of information including research datasets or
for improving the visibility of research outputs amongst the business community. These are only
examples – the whole issue of how repositories can help researchers with the research process
needs to be thoroughly investigated in partnership with researchers with the assistance of senior
library staff – usually referred to as ‘liaison’ or ‘subject librarians’ – whose responsibility it is to support
research within their institutions.
The work conducted by the IRIScotland projects have also helped highlight the need to bridge the gap
between the repository-related technological advances achieved by dedicated repository-focused
projects on the one hand and the level of technological and organisational awareness, engagement
and expertise at institutional level on the other. Close collaboration with institutional repository
managers is the other side of the equation in the successful delivery of researcher-friendly repository
and cross-repository services – the collaboration being essential to maximise the potential of the
distributive environment which is dependent on reliable patterns of interaction between institutional
repository infrastructures and the central elements. Metadata for enhanced resource discovery,
curation and long-term preservation are all areas of activity that have been identified as needing
enhancements requiring greater levels of engagement with repository managers and their institutions.
It is to the credit of the original IRIScotland project that it recognised at an early stage the importance
of the SFC-funded research pools – SUPA (Scottish Universities Physics Alliance), the first research
pool, formally supported the project bid, and the project greatly benefited from the SUPA
representative’s active participation in the work of the project board. Research pools are now widely
credited for having substantially contributed to Scotland’s RAE 2008 successes, including the
increase of Scotland’s share of the UK's world-class research from 11.6% in 2001 to 12.3% (even
though Scotland has only 8.5% of the UK population)8. Pooling, which is defined as the ‘…formation of
strategic collaborations between universities in disciplinary or multi-disciplinary areas involving the
international quality departments or individual researchers across Scotland’9, represents a novel’ –
and clearly successful – cross-institutional way of doing research that needs to be reflected in and
supported by the research information environment. While the IRIScotland cross-repository
infrastructure is certainly a step in the right direction, much more work needs to be done – in close
partnership with research pools – to investigate, develop and implement ways of providing the best
repository infrastructure and functionality for research pooling and other types of collaborative work.
There is a need, in particular, to develop methodologies enabling researchers to view the outputs of
an entire research pool or other collaborative grouping from one point of access and to find out who is
working on what so that new collaborations can flourish both within and across institutions locally,
regionally, nationally or globally. Repositories for research collaborations will need to take account of
the specificity of the different groupings – some research pools, for example, involve the participation
of both academics directly funded by the research pool and others working in the same subject area.
It is also essential to discuss the relationship between subject, institutional and research pool
repositories to ensure, for example, that researchers do not have to deposit more than once and that
all types of repositories can include metadata referring to the grant-related information that the
Research Councils are keen to make available in this way10.
2. Aims and Objectives
Overall aim
The purpose of the ERIS project is to develop – in close partnership with researchers and their
institutions’ repository managers – a set of user-led and user-centric solutions that will motivate
researchers to deposit their work in repositories, facilitate the integration of repositories in research
and institutional processes and, as a result, develop the IRIScotland pilot into a trusted cross-
8
See Scots universities pool research to join world leaders, The Guardian, 18/12/08, at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/dec/18/rae-scotland; see also Pooling hailed as key to
Scottish improvement, Times Higher Education, 01/01/09, at
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=404806&sectioncode=26
9
See http://www.sfc.ac.uk/information/information_research/strategic_research_grant.htm#pooling for
list of current research pools and full definition.
10
See sections 203-204 in JISC Information Environment Grant Funding Opportunity 12/8: Call for
Proposals.
Page 5 of 44

repository resource discovery service, capable of providing access to a critical mass of Scottish
research output. In order to achieve this overall aim, ERIS will pay particular attention to the
requirements of research pooling – an innovative cross-institutional way of conducting research,
which has been widely credited for having substantially contributed to Scotland’s RAE 2008
successes
In the light of the above analysis and keeping in mind that the ultimate aim is to provide Scotland with
a trusted cross-repository service providing access to a critical mass of Scottish research output, the
ERIS project will aim to achieve four main goals, which seek to meet the four challenges listed in the
Terms of Reference for Strand 5 in section 91 of the JISC call document, namely:
• Increasing deposit rates via technical, policy or other means;

• Enhancing the user experience for depositors, administrators and users of materials held in
repositories;
• Improving the capacity of repositories to contribute to the preservation of the material they
hold;
• Improving the institutional policy framework within which repositories work, in terms of both
documented policies and their implementation.
The four main objectives of the ERIS project are as follows:
i. To enhance the level of researchers’ engagement with repositories with a view to

achieving a more sophisticated understanding of what repository functionality is
needed.
This will entail:
a. Discussing with subject-specific research pools and targeted groups of individual

researchers across disciplines what repositories can do that will be so helpful to them that
they will want to deposit their research outputs in them ‘as a matter of course’ –
functionality development needs to occur in parallel with infrastructure building to ensure
researcher involvement and support;
b. Feeding – on an on-going basis and throughout the duration of the project – the
outcomes of these functionality-focused discussions into the technical and workflow-
related enhancement work that will be carried out by the project, always bearing in mind
that the enhancements originally planned may have to be refocused to incorporate the
researchers’ requirements – flexibility and a dynamic relationship between researchers
and the project’s repository developers is key.
ii. To enhance curation and preservation processes within institutions with a view to
strengthening credibility about the longevity of repositories amongst researchers.
This will entail:
a. Working in close collaboration with repository custodians to help institutions – using, for
example, the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model – with planning the various stages required
for successful curation and preservation of data from initial conceptualisation or receipt
(including roles and responsibilities; standards and technologies);
b. Developing recommendations – in close collaboration with repository managers – for a
set of machine-readable digital object preservation policies for use within a collaborative
preservation service option, and investigating the advantages and feasibility of developing
a long-term preservation facility for repository content in partnership with the National
Library of Scotland.
iii. To provide technological enhancements that will improve researcher-centric

functionality and strengthen the technical synergy between the institutional
repositories and the central elements of the cross-repository service in a number of
areas including: virtual repositories for research pools; resource aggregations and
version control; subject access for improved resource discovery; usage statistics
Page 6 of 44

reports for the benefit of researchers and institutions; and long-term preservation of
content.
This will entail:
a. Working in close collaboration with the repository managers and research pool
webmasters of the institutions where the researchers and research pool members
involved with the project are based – using this opportunity to develop the best ways of
bridging the gap, as and when necessary, between the technical expertise gained by the
project and that of the institution-based technical teams;
b. Acting upon the outcomes of the work conducted with researchers to increase
researcher-centric functionality – see Objective i(b) – including functionality specifically
required for research pooling.
iv. To develop an IRIScotland policy framework for organisational and financial

sustainability that may subsequently be translated to other repository federations.
This will entail:
a. Campaigning – in partnership with the IRIScotland Council, SCURL, SLIC, Universities

Scotland and the Research Pools – for the adoption of mandatory open access policies
across Scotland with a view to stimulating repository population growth and therefore
increase the relevance of IRIScotland for Scottish research;
b. Costing the value to the HE community of supporting IRIScotland – including the costs of
implementing a shared metadata agreement, maintaining adequate staffing levels to
support interoperability and adopting the DCC curation lifecycle methodology – and the
potential cost of not supporting it.
c. Producing a cost model and business plan to ensure on-going financial viability of the
IRIScotland service including aspects of the service added as a result of the work
conducted with researchers by the ERIS project – these may include, for instance,
services aimed at providing researchers with usage information and higher levels of
visibility with the business community;
3. Overall Approach
The ERIS Project will aim over the course of 24 months to create a substantial body of research and
technological outputs from across the participating institutions by building on the successes of the
IRIScotland project and its associated deliverables.
The key message however, is the attempt of the ERIS project to take the perspective of the user to
understand the motivation to deposit and how this is affected by the growing momentum for
mandatory deposit into institutional Open access repositories. This ‘bottom up’ approach is crucial in
identifying and developing the workflows and systems that will be truly useful to the research
community and it has been identified as a key link between the supply and demand sides of
institutional open access mandates.
The project is ambitious in its undertaking, and will deliver a wide ranging set of outputs across 5
interconnected work packages that can and will be used to educate, train and facilitate good practice
in repository usage across three levels;
1. User (researcher) level

2. Research administrators/liaison librarians
3. Repository managers
In addition to the creation of outputs that assist in repository operations themselves, it is also
proposed to carry out a number of detailed investigations into areas of policy surrounding the curation
and operation for long term preservation and how this could be implemented in a collaborative fashion
across Scotland.
Page 7 of 44

Learning outcomes from these project activities will be shared with the community, paving the way for
an enhanced interaction with national and international aggregation services such as Intute and
DRIVER.
The project will also seek to work with other JISC approved projects in the programme and other JISC
programmes, to effectively contribute outputs and lessons learned to UK HEIs.
The project will last for twenty four months from the programme start date at the beginning of April
2009.
4. Project Outputs
Due to the nature of the project, work packages will be managed as a portfolio of projects, with each
work package will be run as a separate activity required to deliver enabling outputs that are aligned to
the overall ERIS success factors, their identified benefits and their measures.
Work package managers are encouraged to us a PRINCE2 based approach across the portfolio.
Project document outputs
Project document deliverables will follow the guidelines as laid out by JISC and will include the
following formal catalogue of outputs, all of which will be made available for public access via the
project website:
• Project plan;
• progress and budget statements and reports as required;
• Consortium agreements
• Risk and issue register
• Formative evaluation reports
• The final project report
• Supporting website(s) and blog
• Project glossary and used standards
• Documentation of dissemination activities including: institutional / demonstration workshops,
information days for wider dissemination and proposed end-of-project dissemination event;
• Project closure report
• Project completion report
Specialist outputs
The deliverables that will be produced in each work package are described as ‘specialist outputs’,
which include both technological and human efforts required to facilitate the formal outputs described.
These specialist outputs are summarised below, with detailed descriptions of the delivery of each
work package attached as Appendix B.
At point of completion in March 2011, the project will be able to demonstrate the delivery of the
following set of outputs.
WP1 – Enhancing Researchers’ Engagement with Repositories
• Established ERIS Researcher and Research Pool communities

• Project Website to be used for ERIS user engagement and collaboration
• Researcher engagement survey method and questions
• Completed focus group meetings
• Compiled and ordered focus group data and simple analysis
• Interim report of survey results
Page 8 of 44

• Completed Researcher event (to be held at Scottish Agricultural College)

• Continuing community engagement plan (strategy to maintain momentum and communications
post survey)
• A Final report on the WP1 survey activity and community engagement
• Summative review reports of completed WP3 deliverables against user needs.
• A report of follow on actions for WP1 activity, post project completion
WP2 – Enhancing Curation and Preservation Processes within Institutions
• An agreed method and approach to surveying Scottish HEI’s curation policies

• Compiled and ordered survey results/data
• Analysis of results
• Report on survey of Scottish HEI curation policies
• Recommended approach for development of curation policy framework for Scottish Institutions
• The Developed Draft Policy Framework
• Set of policy framework user scenarios and approach to testing the success of implementation
• A final agreed policy framework for recommendation by the ERIS project
• Requirements documentation and Use cases for ERIS metadata profiles for digital objects
• Design of object metadata profiles to meet requirements (technical and administrative metadata)
• Test scripts to prove applicability of metadata to selected use case scenarios
• Report of recommendations for curation policy and metadata approaches for implementation.
• Report of recommendation for long term preservation of IR contents and data, run out of
NLS
WP3 – Technological Enhancements for Improved Research-centric Functionality and

Technical Synergy with the Institutions
• User scenarios and use cases for each development module identified (virtual research pool
repositories, object description via OAI_ORE, versioning, statistics, HILT integration)
• Use case realisations/feasibility for each module in Dspace and/or Eprints
• Implemented (developed and tested) enhancements for Dspace/Eprints as per requirements
• Validation report against DCC methodology for designing and evaluating curation and
preservation experiments
• Validation report against user identified requirements in line with WP1
WP4 – Developing an IRIScotland Policy Framework for Organisational and Financial

Sustainability
Time scale: 2 years; Leader: University of Edinburgh (in partnership with all partners)
• Common message explaining the business case for OA to Scottish Institutions

• Arranged set of IRIScotland council meetings to discuss OA across project duration
• Recurring Scottish ‘Mandate watch’ report for website in conjunction with SCURL
• Developed website for promotion of OA activities to HEI influencers and funders
• ERIS established cost model for institutional repository set up and operation
• Survey and results of areas of management concern/focus and costs of IR operation
• Report on current costs of repository operations in Scotland
• ERIS Proposed business plan for onward operation
• ERIS Proposal of governance arrangements for onward operation
WP5 – Project Management
• Quality plan of project document outputs as defined in project plan

• Quality plan of project specialist products as defined by each work package
Page 9 of 44

• Benefits realisation plan (to provide evidence based evaluations of project outcomes)
• Project progress/summary reports as required by the project board
• Formative evaluation reports of project throughout
• Summary report of project social networking goals (lessons learned)
• User engagement strategy and plan
• Project website(s) for user engagement (link to WP1/2 and 4)
• Communication and dissemination plan
• Project events
• Event reports
• Summative evaluation reports to correspond with WP3 deliverables (link to WP1)
• Full ERIS project Summative evaluation
5. Project Outcomes (Vision and expected benefits)
ERIS will facilitate the development of a fully fledged institutional and cross-institutional repository
infrastructure that will make it possible for the IRIScotland pilot to become a trusted and highly
populated cross-repository resource discovery service for Scotland. It will greatly contribute to the
JISC Innovation and IE Programmes11 and support the open access and self-archiving publishing
models, which, according to the recently published Houghton report 12, could save millions of pounds
to the UK HE sector.
However, whilst the project seeks to deliver the outputs described above, one of the major
differentiators of the ERIS project is that it seeks to demonstrate that it can deliver a beneficial
outcome for research management on a national level, which in turn has an ultimate outcome of
improved research opportunities through greater exposure of results and a demonstrated return on
investment for funding bodies.
To that end, the project will, as part of the business planning in WP4, define a benefits realisation
plan (BRP) - define a statement of the benefits being targeted by the project, recommend key
performance indicators and the steps that will be taken over time by the programme (through enabling
products) to realise them. This BRP will be aligned to the previously declared success factors of the
project; namely
• Short-term: (ERIS in-project success factors)
(a) Improved facilities; researcher-friendly repositories supporting research pooling and

other collaborative work and with added value to encourage deposit;
(b) Interoperability; Improved workflows and metadata exchange for seamless embedding of
the repositories in the research and institutional processes;
(c) Improvements in education and training; enhanced knowledge and skills within
institutions at all levels;
(d) Improved community collaboration; transferable best practices and service models;
• Long-term: (post project factors)
(a) Improved rate of deposit; increased deposit rates leading to critical mass of research
output available at both institutional and cross-repository levels.
11
Sections 26, 28 & 93, JISC Information Environment Grant Funding Opportunity 12/8: Call for
Proposals.
12
J. Houghton et al. Economic implications of alternative scholarly publishing models: exploring the
costs and benefits. Jan. 2009.
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/rpteconomicoapublishing.pdf
Page 10 of 44

(b) Development of trust; increased user confidence – amongst researchers and institutional
managers – in the value and longevity of repositories;
(c) Demonstrated return on investment; increased confidence in the long-term ability of

repositories to enhance visibility for Scottish research and, as a result, the practical and
commercial exploitation of the Scottish research base
6. Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder Interest / stake Importance

All students and academic staff of Effective management of research High
Scottish Universities participating in or outputs for promotion and
managing research projects dissemination and for funding.
Researchers (local, national and Interested in the discovery and usage High
international) interested in the discovery of materials being made available
and reuse of Scottish research outputs through institutional repositories
Research Pools Interested in the development of High
research pool infrastructure and
collaborative working
Repository ‘influencers’ Senior level management able to set High
or influence setting of OA mandates
or requirements within their
institutions
Research administrators Interested in services to facilitate Medium
deposit, assessment and usage
Liaison/Subject librarians Interested in the development of tools Medium
to assist in the use of institutional
repositories
Repository managers Interested in implementing best Medium
practice in repository operation on
behalf of their institutions
Funding organisations Interested in return on investment and Medium
spread of outputs
SCURL (Scottish Confederation of Interested in the development of a High
University Research Libraries) cooperative and collaborative
research library infrastructure within
Scotland.
SLIC (Scottish Library and Information Interested in the development of a Medium
Council) cooperative and collaborative library
infrastructures within Scotland.
7. Risk Analysis
The project and work packages will run a separate risk and issue register as part of its project
controls. Risks will be discussed as a standing item at the project management team meetings, and
also as part of the project delivery meetings.
The following risks have been identified at point of initiation and are being managed accordingly.
Risk Probability Severity Score Action to Prevent/Manage Risk

(1-5) (1-5) (P x S)
Staffing 2 4 8 Team work structure across a
number of institutions; Project
Director and Deputy Director, WP
leaders already in place; lead site
with project management
Page 11 of 44

expertise;
Organisational 1 3 3 Collaboration agreement at start of
project; project and work package
management structure embedded
in partner institutions;
Financial 1 5 5 Commitment from institutions’
senior managers (see letters of
support and collaboration
agreement at start of project);
Technical 2 5 10 Repository-related high expertise
and appropriate technical /
programming staffing levels across
the partnership; use of technical
standards
Legal 2 1 2 Use of professional legal expertise
as recommended by the
participating institutions and JISC
Legal;
8. Standards
The project will adhere to JISC13and other internationally recognised standards, such as OAI-PMH
and OAI-ORE, and follow appropriate metadata and metadata content standards, such as Dublin
Core, METS and standard subject schemes, as and when necessary or appropriate. It will do so in
light of the work being done by similar projects in the UK and globally.
The project will be driven by the users needs, and we will adopt additional standards wherever
possible. It is not intended to deviate from JISC recommendations. The project will produce a
separate standards list and glossary as part of its project documentation.
9. Technical Development
The technical team will ensure that the technical outputs from the project meet the highest possible
technical standards appropriate for its use. Work package 3 (Technological Enhancements for
Improved Research-centric Functionality and Technical Synergy with the Institutions ) will be
responsible for the overall coordination of development activity across participating institutions, and
will implement appropriate productivity and management tools for development, such as Subversion14,
Basecamp15 or Fogbugz16 in order to ensure as smooth an operation as possible.
Development will be delivered using an agile approach, in order to emphasis the principles of user led
development, and will seek to follow the principles laid down by the agile manifesto 17 System needs
will be driven ultimately by the users, and we also anticipate that we will need to explore how the
institutional repository systems might need to interact with identified research ‘enabling’ systems, such
as authoring tools, virtual research/learning environments, workflow tools and authority services
The technical work on the project will be particularly challenging, as our objectives require us to
provide enhancements on a number of alternative repository platforms, hence there will be a focus on
loosely coupled developments that are as interchangeable as possible via standard protocols such as
SWORD or OAI-ORE
However, in parallel with this user led approach, Work package 3 has identified a number of areas
based on institutional experience where the project can get a ‘head start’ on providing value added
13
See at http://standards.jisc.ac.uk/catalogue/Home.phtml.
14
http://subversion.tigris.org/
15
http://www.basecamphq.com/
16
http://www.fogcreek.com/FogBUGZ/
17
http://www.agilemanifesto.org/
Page 12 of 44

services that have already been identified as crucial to the process of deposit. In particular this will
look at the development of a virtual repository model for research pools and other types of research
collaborations. Implementation of the research pool model – using existing content in institutional
repositories in Scotland – will be completed for at least two of the research pools participating in the
project;
The project has also committed to the validation of repository enhancements, through the use of the
DCC Methodology for Designing and Evaluating Curation and Preservation Experiments and the Planets
test-bed
10. Intellectual Property Rights
IPR for the software, technologies and metadata developed by the project will belong to the
institutions where the work is carried out, and the output made available through an Open Source
Licence. IPR for deliverables, such as guidelines, specimen policies and reports will be owned by the
work package lead institution, which will grant a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive licence to UK
HE and FE institutions for internal use, and to JISC on the terms of paragraphs 119-200 of the
call. IPR for the research material deposited in the repositories will be in accordance with the authors’
institutional policies.
Project Resources
11. Project Partners
The project primary and secondary partners are listed in the table below. The secondary partners are
the Research Pools and SCURL institutions that will work with ERIS to build and enhance their own
repositories within the framework of the developing cross-repository infrastructure. The project also
enjoys the full support of Universities Scotland.
Primary Partners Secondary Partners

1. University of Edinburgh (lead Research Pools18,:
institution) 1. SAGES (Scottish Alliance for Geoscience,
2. CDLR (Centre for Digital Library Environment and Society)
Research), University of Strathclyde 2. SICSA (Scottish Informatics and Computer Science
3. DCC (Digital Curation Centre) Alliance)
4. National Library of Scotland 3. SIRE (Scottish Institute for Research in Economics)
5. OCLC / RLG 4. SULSA (Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance)
6. SAC (Scottish Agricultural College) SCURL Institutions:
7. SCURL (Scottish Confederation of 1. Heriot-Watt University
University and Research Libraries) 2. RGU (The Robert Gordon University)
8. SLIC (Scottish Library and 3. UWS (University of the West of Scotland)
Information Council) 4. University of Aberdeen
9. University of Glasgow 5. University of Dundee
6. University of St Andrews
7. University of Stirling
12. Project Management
The project will be managed according to JISC guidelines19, and based on a PRINCE2 approach.
Project governance will be as follows;
18
See SAGES at http://www.sages.ac.uk/; SICSA at http://www.sicsa.ac.uk/; SIRE at
http://www.sire.ac.uk/; SULSA at http://www.sulsa.ac.uk/ and SUPA at http://www.supa.ac.uk/.
19
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/proj_manguide
Page 13 of 44

Project Board
Project
Management Team
Project Delivery
team
Work Package 1 Work Package 2 Work Package 3 Work Package 4 Work Package 5
13. Roles and Responsibilities
The following section describes the key roles and their responsibilities on the project;
Responsibilities of the Project Board
The Project Board will retain responsibility for setting overall expectations for the project, against the
originally planned objectives and outcomes. The project plan, core management products and
technical content of the project will need to be agreed by the board. The project board will meet in
person at least twice yearly and will be chaired by the Project Director.
The project board may elect to form advisory sub groups as required. Any such additional subgroup
meetings may be called by members as required or on the advice of the Project Director in order to
provide specialist guidance to the project. The board may also choose to take advice from
independent third parties (project advisors) as is required. Any meetings should operate under the
rules specified in the Project Plan.
Responsibilities of the Project Management Team
The responsibilities of the Project Director and Deputy Director are to direct the project and with the
project manager, ensure that work proceeds smoothly and effectively overall to achieve the objectives
and deliverables defined in the Project Plan.
The project management team will meet on a fortnightly basis as the ‘project management team’
Project management
The project manager will be responsible for overall coordination with project partners and all other
identified stakeholders, and is responsible for project administration and reporting, including reports to
JISC. The role will be staffed on a full time basis 1.0FTE
Responsibilities of the Project delivery team (Workpackage leaders)
The project delivery team are responsible for the detailed planning, specification, management and
delivery of objectives and products (outputs) as required for the individual work packages, and to the
level of quality expected by the project board.
Page 14 of 44

The project delivery team will meet once every two months in order to discuss overall project progress
and to report on the delivery of work packages against expectations. Individual workpackage leaders
will work closely with the project manager to ensure that any delays in delivery or issues/risks
affecting their work packages are managed accordingly.
Workpackage leaders will be expected to contribute highlight reports to the project manager for
distribution on a monthly basis.
Contract of Expectations
The project expects that all project members use all reasonable endeavours to undertake that they
will:
• Perform on time tasks and work packages assigned to it under the consortia agreement
• Participate actively and respectfully with other Parties in the project;
• Promptly notify the Project Manager of any delays in delivery or concerns over performance;
• Prepare for and organise institutional visits in good time;
• Prepare and present reports as required.
Project delivery team
The delivery team for the ERIS project will include the following key personnel;
Project Board Members
The project board is made up from the members indicated above, plus;
Additional Representatives to be appointed;
• Partner representative for research institutions outside universities;
• Representative of the research community to be nominated by the research pools;
• Representative of a Scottish University Research Vice-Principal office to be nominated by

Universities Scotland
14. Programme Support
There are no specific areas identified at this stage that have been identified as requiring additional
programme support.
15. Budget
The budget is as agreed in the project proposal and included in Appendix A
Page 15 of 44

Detailed Project Planning

15. Project work packages
Detailed descriptions of activity and deliverables for each work package can be found in Appendix B
16. Evaluation Plans
The project is seeking to engage with the user community in order to develop repository services to
best meet their needs. During the project delivery stages the team will need to periodically review the
success of the project deliverables and re-work, or re-plan schedules accordingly. In order to ensure
that these reviews are communicated widely, the project will create a formative evaluation report to
coincide with each project board meeting. This report will be reviewed as a standing item by the board
and any actions undertaken as appropriate.
Within this report, clear deviations from the project plan will be managed using standard project
controls, such as risk and issue management and change control management, however there will be
a number of critical dependencies that will be subject to constant evaluation. In particular the project
will consider the following
User involvement – is the project engaging with users appropriate to the project mission
Project management – is the project being managed appropriately, is communication appropriate
and schedule/budget on track
Evidence based evaluations – can/will the project produce evidence of its successes?
Relevancy – is the project direction still true to the original project mission? Have there been any
significant deviations, or omissions against the initial plan.
Evaluation of Success factors
The project has identified, in section 5 of the plan, a number of success factors that will be monitored
to provide demonstrable proof of the success of the project. These project outcomes are identified as
either short and long term as described below. It is assumed that it will only be possible to practically
manage the evaluation of short term factors within the project time constraints. The following table
describes a number of measures relating to the project, and which need to be managed across the
whole life of the ERIS project.
Short term measures
Timing Outcomes to Questions to Address Method(s) Measure of Success

Evaluate
Delivery of enabling Have improved facilities Inventory of Increased take up of
systems for repository been produced by the repository tool repository services
users project which focus on usage across offered
user needs; project
partners
System
testing Tools signed off by
users as fit for use
User
satisfaction
that tools Positive result from
represent fit WP1 Summative
Page 16 of 44
for purpose evaluations

Interoperability of Has the project been Demonstration Common use of
repository content successful in of metadata and policy
within Scotland; introducing common interoperability frameworks advocated
standards and protocols by ERIS via WP2
for a cross-Scotland demonstrated by the
repository environment project
Improvements in Has the project been Community Increased awareness

education and training successful in building survey to of curation and
at the user level; an enhanced review impact preservation issues
knowledge and
appreciation of value,
curation and
preservation for
repositories within
institutions at all levels;
Improved repository Have cross institutional High level Evidence of cross

community boundaries been review of repository usage and
collaboration; reduced and is there participant community
evidence of a transfer of activity across collaboration
best practices and Scotland
service models;
Measure Demonstrable
volume of percentage gain over
content life of project
contained
within the
cross
repository
Identify Demonstrable
number of interchange of data
linked (not just metadata) into
repositories central repository from
within the at least two partners.
ERIS network
Long term measures
The following table describes the project long term success factors, which, whilst they cannot be fully
measured during the duration of the work, can be defined so that they can be considered a baseline
measure, and may be subject to ongoing benefits realisation work.
Timing Outcomes to Questions to Address Method(s) Measure of Success

Evaluate
Improved rate of increased deposit rates Measure of Percentage increase in
deposit;; leading to critical mass volume of deposit from multiple
of research output content channels
available at both deposited in
institutional and cross- ERIS linked
repository levels and, if repositories
necessary, via VREs
Development of trust; increased confidence – Community Clear increase in levels

amongst researchers survey of confidence
and institutional
managers – in the
longevity of repositories;
Page 17 of 44

Demonstrated return increased confidence in Measures of Increased funding

on investment; the long-term ability of investment linked to visibility
repositories to enhance (funding and through repository
visibility for Scottish resources) aggregations
research and, as a
result, the practical and Measure of Percentage increase in
commercial exploitation citation number of citation
of the Scottish research counts counts for participating
base across ERIS institutions
networks
Evidence of Partnership or other

commercial funding relationship as
involvement a result of ERIS
network
17. Quality Plan
The projects outputs, or products, (described in section 4) will be quality managed through use of
good practice (PRINCE2 based) management techniques, and in particular, by using product
descriptions to define the delivery elements of each work package.
These product descriptions are defined as a statement of a product intended to be produced,

developed or obtained – produced before delivery – to ensure that those involved in their production
know:
• Why the product is needed

• What it will look like
• How and from what sources it will be derived
• The Quality specification to which the must comply.
The project delivery team will ensure that descriptions are realistic and achievable, and above all to
ensure that the outputs have objective measures. All products will be signed off by the project delivery
team as required.
18. Dissemination Plan
The project will share its experiences, evaluations, recommendations and results within the repository
community in Scotland as part of our mission to encourage the adoption of a common, collaborative
approach to the management of research outputs
The team will seek to ensure that dissemination is on-going throughout the course of the project and
through these approaches, aims to foster a broad community of stakeholders who share the projects
vision and objectives for success.
Formal Dissemination
The project will produce a number of formal project communications, scheduled across the project
such as progress reports, mid year reviews and project specific seminars and workshops in
conjunction with the IRIScotland repository managers network.
The following table describes dissemination activities that have been identified at the point of initial
planning. It is expected that this dissemination plan will develop throughout the project.
Table 18.1 Formal (planned) Dissemination activities
Page 18 of 44

Timing Dissemination Audience Purpose Key Message

Activity
Ongoing Participation in pre- Library directors To update and Encourage institutional
arranged SCURL inform community participation in ERIS
meetings of influencers project
Ongoing Participation in Community/Other To share Participation in the
(and wide repository events projects experiences of Repository community
ranging) ERIS Project with (i.e. JISC Inf11,
repository UKCoRR, RSP, other
community events)
Ongoing Participation in Community/Other To share Participation in the
researcher events projects experiences of researcher/pool
ERIS Project with community via
researcher/research invitation
pool community
Ongoing ERIS Websites Everyone Keeping Mode of
(project and network stakeholders and communication for
specific) community project developments,
informed and news and events and
allowing for an access to project
informal two way documentation/outputs
communication
Researcher Hold researcher Research To communicate To communicate
event event to discuss community outcomes of findings and to
(March outputs from WP1 surveys held in encourage onward
2010) and WP2 surveys WP1 and 2 on user participation
needs and
researcher curation
needs.
End of ERIS All stakeholders To create a broad To encourage
Project Seminar/Conference and Scottish stakeholder participation across all
(March research community forum stakeholders and to
2011) community and to report on maintain momentum
project outcomes at point of project
and to propose closure.
future activity
The project will produce a number of reports summarising progress across the life of the project.
These will be published on project websites and blogs as required.
Timing Dissemination Audience Purpose Key Message

Activity
4 reports Production of Project group Report on Demonstrate progress
across formative evaluation alignment of project against scope
project life reports to original mission
to
correspond
with project
board
meetings
3 reports on Mid year Evaluation Project group Report of progress To report on progress
total reports (work of project to date
(September packages and
2009, March project)
2010,
September
2010
Monthly Project Highlight Project group Monthly update of To report on progress
consolidated reports project progress
Page 19 of 44

report based
on
checkpoint
reports
Monthly Work package Project group Regular progress To report on progress
checkpoint reports reporting from work
reporting package managers
March 2011 Final project Project group Final report on To provide a
reporting (work project for project summative evaluation
packages and client of the project against
project) original
aims/objectives
Informal Dissemination
This will take place through the use of a variety of mechanisms, including a blog based project
website, and participation in various social networking opportunities such as Twitter and Facebook,
and through more traditional participation in local, national and international seminars and
conferences. More detail on the social engagement will be developed as part of the ERIS Proejct
communication plans.
The project will report on its experiences in the social networking community as a report in
workpackage 5 – Project management.
19. Exit and Sustainability Plans
Project products and records
The project will produce a number of products across the work plans which will be useful to a number
of institutional projects, not only for the ongoing work on Scottish Institutional repositories, but also on
a UK wide basis. To ensure that these products are of value outside of the project, the following
actions will be undertaken;
Outputs Action for Take-up & Embedding Action for Exit

Project documentation and Freely available for public use; Ensure that products are
reports ongoing attendance and involvement transferred to a secure
in related seminars/conferences and repository for long term access;
workshops associated with repository maintain ERIS project website
networks for minimum 3 years post
project
Technological Project products made available via Deposit of technological
developments open source license according to products into managed code
section 10 of the project plan repository to allow for re-
distribution, reuse and
redevelopment
Data gathered during Data gathered during the course of Ensure that data is included in
project the project research made available the long term preservation
as supporting data for reports and repository, curated appropriately
recommendations and associated with the
products that they derive.
Recommendations, advice Freely available for public use; Ensure that products are
and guidance ongoing attendance and involvement transferred to a secure
in related seminars/conferences and repository for long term access;
workshops associated with repository maintain ERIS project website
networks for minimum 3 years post
project
Long term sustainability is a key aim of the ERIS project.

Page 20 of 44

Work package 4 specifically addresses the issues associated with long term sustainability of
IRIScotland services. In particular, to provide the necessary advice and guidance for the IRIScotland
council, the project will develop an understanding of the costs and benefits associated with managing
the lifecycle requirements of repositories and their content, including the costs of implementing a
shared metadata agreement, maintaining adequate staffing levels to support interoperability, adopting
the DCC curation lifecycle methodology – and indeed the potential impact cost of not supporting such
an infrastructure
The following core products are to be developed during work package 4 -Developing an IRIScotland
Policy Framework for Organisational and Financial Sustainability;
Project Outputs Why Sustainable Scenarios for Taking Issues to Address

Forward
Cost / benefit Instructional guidance Develop into a self Training and support,
analysis report for institutions looking certification approach to continued refinement of
based on into the set up, and help institutions develop a analysis based on
consultation with the operation of business case. current trends
Scottish HEI institutional
community repositories
A cost model and The business case for Proposals for further Sources of potential
business plan to continuing to operate a funding, implementing as a funding, contractual
ensure on-going cooperative service business plan for an issues between
financial viability of across Scotland ongoing repository partners, issues of
IRIScotland infrastructure across company vs
including services Scotland collaboration,
arising from the continued
consultation with demand/value for such
researchers during a service
the course of the
project
Governance model The structure of a Launch of Negotiation of cross

which will define the formal cross Scotland ERIS/IRIScotland as institutional
structure for research environment formal service to Scottish agreements on
embedding – ensuring appropriate institutions in collaboration operation/funding and
IRIScotland in the stakeholder with existing consortia work plans post project
Scottish research involvement and work such as SCURL
environment; planning over the
medium/long term
Page 21 of 44

Appendix A. Project Budget

[removed from online version]
Page 22 of 44
Appendix B. Work packages
Project Schedule
Apr 09
May 09
June 09
July 09
Aug 09
Sept 09
Oct 09
Nov 09
Dec 09
Jan 10
Feb 10
Mar 10
Apr 10
May 10
Jun 10
July 10
Aug 10
Sept 10
Oct 10
Nov 10
Dec 10
Jan 11
Feb 11
Mar 11
Activity
WP1 Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1: Network development
and planning
2: User engagement
3: Review, reporting and

recommendations
4: Development of user
recommendations
5: Implementation and
review
WP2 Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1: Institutional survey
2: Curation policy
framework
3: Digital Preservation
policy
4: Feasibility of Long term
Repository
WP3 Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Page 23 of 44
1: Virtual Repositories for

Research Pools
2: Resource aggregations
3: Versioning
4: Access enhancements
5: Statistical reporting
6: Interchange via ORE for

preservation
WP4 Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
i. OA Mandate advocacy
ii. 1: Cost / benefit
analysis report;
iii. 2: Business plan
iv. 3: Governance model
WP5 Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1. Communication and
dissemination strategy
2. Management of online
presence
3. Project Management
4. Project Reporting to
JISC / SCURL
5. Summative evaluation
Project start date: 1st April 2009

Project completion date: 31st March 2011
Duration: 24 months
Page 24 of 44

Detail Work package Activities
Work package and activity Earliest Latest Responsibility

Start Completion
WP1 – Enhancing Researchers’ Engagement with Repositories July 2009 March 2011 Leader: University of
Glasgow (with OCLC-
RLG, NLS, SAC and
SCURL)
Overall Objective:
To enhance the level of researchers’ engagement with repositories with a view to;
(a) Achieving a more sophisticated understanding of how repositories fit into their workflows and what repository functionality and added-value services
need to be developed; and
(b) Feeding this information on an on-going basis into the work that will be carried out by the project’s other strands.
Planned Activities
Activity Start Finish Delivery To do Lists (for Deliverables Milestone Who
approach Basecamp)
Developing networks July March Determine finally Agree terms of reference ERIS Research Contact University of
involving subject-specific 2009 2010 the research for participation of Pool community with all Glasgow/OC
research pools including pools to be researchers and how relevant LC-
those partnering with included; make they will be informed of Set of completed research RLG/SCURL
ERIS; contact with conclusions focus group pools and
those research meetings for RP’s schedule
pools; tap into Agree minimum useful s for
their pre-existing number of participants to focus
networks, where evaluate outputs groups in
possible. successfully place by
Nov 2009
Contact and confirm
involvement of RP’s on
Project by Letter/Phone,
based on ERIS
Partners+SINAPSE
Page 25 of 44

Arrange dates/themes of
focus group meetings
Developing – in July March Using SCURL Agree terms of reference ERIS Researcher Contact SCURL/
partnership with 2009 2010 links ask subject for participation of community with all OCLC-
liaison/subject librarians – librarians in all researchers and how relevant RLG/GU
networks of individual partner they will be informed of Set of completed research
researchers across institutions to conclusions focus group pools and
institutions – including identify meetings for schedule
research institutions researchers Agree minimum useful researchers s for
outside universities – willing to be number of participants to focus
focusing on disciplines contacted about evaluate outputs groups in
not included in the repository issues successfully place by
research pools (May only be Nov 2009
participating in the necessary for SLs Contact SCURL
project; to identify one or members via Jill Evans
two researchers
each). Develop Arrange dates/themes of
questions to ask focus group meetings
these
researchers. Ask
them to sign up to
a blog(?) to
maintain ongoing
contact.
Developing in partnership July March Run a series of Develop questions and Survey/Focus Question OCLC-
with OCLC-RLG a 2009 2010 focus groups, themes for focus groups group method and s for RLG/GU
programme of both based in questions focus
discussions with these individual groups in
networks and a institutions and, if place by
methodology to ensure possible, aimed Nov 09
that the outcomes of at researchers
these discussions inform working in
the work of the project as research pools.
a whole. Draw up a series
of questions for
the focus groups
and produce a
Page 26 of 44

report based on
the outcomes of
the focus
groups
Run focus group sessions Sept March As above Prepare for and run Completed focus Focus OCLC-
– one with each network 09 2010 series of focus groups group meetings Groups RLG/GU
– to find out what with identified complete
researchers and research communities d by end
pools think repositories Feb 2010
should do for them;
Analysis and production Sept March As above Write up results of focus Focus group data Interim OCLC-
of a report on the 09 2010 groups, publish data and and analysis report on RLG/GU
outcomes of these focus analyse outcomes group
groups, including an Interim WP1 report outcomes
updated version of the Produce interim report in time
Research Services Offer from focus groups for for SAC
list20 (produced by OCLC presentation to SAC event
Research within its event March
Research Information 2010
Management
programme) to reflect the
views of the researchers
and the specificity of the
research
Set up researcher July Sept Discuss and Agreed user engagement Project Website for Site in ERIS project
specific communication 09 2009 agree on best plan user engagement place manager
channel strategy for end Sept
(website/blog/newsletter communicating Define and set up site in 09
etc) and discussing time for initial researcher
ideas borne from groups
the user group
sessions and
from collation of
other resources
from other JISC
20
See text of list in Appendix C.
Page 27 of 44

project outputs
Hold a specific event in Sept March Discuss and Tasks for arranging Researcher event SAC ERIS project
SAC 09 2010 agree on event researcher event research manager
structure er event
– March
2010
Setting up project blogs Dec June Agree a long term Strategy to Maintain user Post event/focus In place OCLC-
aimed at enabling an on- 2009 2010 user engagement engagement post June group engagement end June RLG/ERIS
going dialogue with plan to maintain 2010 plan 2010 project
researchers (including an conversation with manager
entry in the RLG researchers past
Partnership blog the end of the
http://hangingtogether.org planned focus
.) groups
Discussing the above- April June At relevant Arrange project board Final WP1 report Produce OCLC-
mentioned report and 2010 2010 meetings meeting to discuss final RLG/GU and
summaries of blog outputs from WP1 as Post WP1 action report by All WP
contributions with the specific agenda plan June leaders
other WPs, the Project 2010
Board and the Produce final report from
IRIScotland Council with focus groups and Discussio
a view to deciding which revision following on n project
research-led from SAC event board
enhancements can and meeting -
will be implemented Produce and agree end June
during the life of the ERIS proposed follow on 2010
project; actions from WP1
activities Agreed
follow on
action
plan end
June
2010
Evaluation of focus group March March Carry out Continual review of Summative review Summati OCLC-
outcomes against project 2010 2011 formative developments against of WP3 ve review RLG/GU
evaluations of identified user needs deliverables across
ERIS 2010/11
Page 28 of 44

development and
work against user complete
based outcomes by end
march
2011
WP1 Outcomes:
i. Improved facilities; researcher-friendly repositories supporting research pooling and other collaborative work and with added value to encourage
deposit;
ii. Improvements in education and training; enhanced knowledge and skills within institutions at all levels
iii. Improved community collaboration; transferable best practices and service models;
iv. Development of trust; increased user confidence – amongst researchers and institutional managers – in the value and longevity of repositories;

Start Completion
WP2 – Enhancing Curation and Preservation Processes within Institutions July 2009 March 2011 DCC (in partnership with
CDLR, Edinburgh and
NLS)
Overall Objective:
To enhance curation and preservation processes within institutions in order to build confidence amongst researchers in the longevity of repositories.
Planned Activities
Activity Start Finish Delivery approach To do Lists (for Deliverables Milestone Who
Basecamp)
Conducting a survey of July March Planning – aims, set up and test Agreed Survey Survey of DCC
Scottish HEIs, building on 2009 2010 scope, establish questionnaire Method, Completed HEI’s
prior DCC investigations of contacts, set up and and tested complete
institutional curation and test questionnaire Evaluate, Clean and carry Questionnaire in by end
preservation policies; out analysis of results Dec 2009
Page 29 of 44

Conduct and Survey data

evaluate survey Create report Survey
Analysis of results report
Analysis of results completed
and draft report Survey report and signed
off by end
Jan 2010
Building upon current DCC Sept April review and select review and select DCC Recommended Tool DCC
tools21 (including 2009 2010 DCC and associated and associated tools approach selection
DRAMBORA, DAF and the tools and
DCC Data Plan templates) manage programme to Draft Policy framework
to produce a framework build framework test tools with institutions Framework approach
enabling institutions to agreed by
develop curation policy test tools with report on viability of Use cases, research end feb
and data plans within the institutions framework following test data 2010
context of the DCC results
Lifecycle Model22, planned report and Agreed policy Report on
DCC work on creating data adjust/confirm framework framework
management templates framework viability by
(including an online tool for end april
creating these) and the 2010
DCC Charter and
Statement of Principles23;
Working with repository Dec July analysis of IRIS analysis of existing IRIS Requirements High level DCC, CDLR,
managers to create a 2009 2010 metadata architecture metadata architecture documentation and design NLS
framework for the definition and requirements and requirements Use cases Specificati
of machine-readable digital on for
object preservation policies liaison with WP3 Use case object
that can be used within the programme to agree Define project needs and realisations (high policies in
collaborative preservation and develop produce and test agreed level system place by
service option to be requirements set of object models designs) Apr 2010
developed under WP3
produce and test set Test scripts, Test Completed
21
DRAMBORA (Digital Repository Audit Method Based on Risk Assessment): (http://www.repositoryaudit.eu/; and DAF (Audit Framework): http://www.data-
audit.eu/;
22
See at www.dcc.ac.uk/docs/publications/DCCLifecycle.pdf.
23
See at http://www.dcc.ac.uk/charter/.
Page 30 of 44

of object models results set of

object
policies by
end July
2010
Investigating the April 10 Oct using results of identify further data Report of Production DCC
advantages and feasibility 2010 survey identify further requirements and plan recommendation for of
of developing a long-term data requirements for acquisition long term recommen
preservation facility for preservation of IR dations
institutional repositories assess NLS facilities assess NLS facilities and contents and data report by
based at the National and forward strategy forward strategy end Oct
Library of Scotland; 2010
assess institutional assess institutional and
and funding council funding council strategies
strategies that impact that impact data
data preservation preservation
drawing on results of drawing on results of

analyses and broader analyses and broader
DCC investigations of DCC investigations of HE
HE data data requirements,
requirements, produce report that
produce report that identifies best options
identifies best options
WP2 Outcomes:
v. Interoperability; Improved workflows and metadata exchange for seamless embedding of the repositories in the research and institutional processes;
vi. Improvements in education and training; enhanced knowledge and skills within institutions at all levels
vii. Improved community collaboration; transferable best practices and service models;
viii. Development of trust; increased user confidence – amongst researchers and institutional managers – in the value and longevity of repositories;
Page 31 of 44


Start Completion
WP3 – Technological Enhancements for Improved Research-centric Functionality July 2009 March 2011 Leader: National Library
and Technical Synergy with the Institutions of Scotland (with CDLR,
Edinburgh and DCC)
Overall Objective:
Objectives:
To provide technological enhancements that will improve researcher-centric functionality, as informed by WP1 and earlier IRIScotland work, while also
bridging the gap between project-based and institution-based repository-management expertise; these enhancements will be made with all Scottish sites in
mind, whether they use DSpace, EPrints or Fedora, and will focus on five main areas of development:
Planned Activities
Activity (project) Start Finish Delivery To do Lists (for Deliverables Milestone Who
approach Basecamp)
Virtual repositories July Dec Initial Scoping Initial scoping User scenarios and Agreed scope of University of
for research pools 2009 2010 exercise – exercise use cases for each development work Edinburgh,
(a) – this will involve develop use development module and user CDLR
modifying institutional case scenarios Detailed design scenarios in
repositories platforms and high level work/prototyping Use case place by Sept
to allow the addition use cases up to realisations/feasibility 2009
of fields to end Sept 2009 Development of for Dspace/Eprints
incorporate metadata module Confirmed
relating to the Detailed Enhancements for feasibility of
research pools; this scoping and Implementation Dspace/Eprints to approaches by
metadata, when feasibility and review of allow for recording of Mar 2010
harvested by the prototyping up developed module research pool details
central aggregation to end Mar 2010 Demonstrable
tool, will permit Validation report software end
Validation of against DCC Sept 2010
needs against methodology for
outcomes from designing and
WP1 evaluating curation
and preservation
Development experiments
and
Page 32 of 44

implementation
of selected
features in
repositories for
enhancement
by end Sept
2010
Evaluation in
line with DCC
testing
approach Sept
10-end Dec
2010
Virtual repositories
for research pools
(b) the building of
research pool-
specific ‘virtual
repositories’ that can
be linked with
institutional and
July March
individual web pages As above As above As above As above NLS
2009 2011
dynamically as new
content is added to
institutional
repositories and
made available to the
aggregator;
Virtual repositories July March As above As above As above As above NLS

for research pools 2009 2011
(c) additional
mechanisms will also
be developed to
ensure de-duplication
of research outputs
Page 33 of 44

deposited in multiple
repositories;
Resource
aggregations
interoperability. This
will involve providing
institutional
repositories with the
necessary
functionality, using
University of
OAI-ORE, to
July March Edinburgh,
structure and As above As above As above As above
2009 2011 CDLR and
transport complex
NLS
aggregations of
resources and
describe them with
the relevant metadata
(e.g. information
about author, funding
body or research
pool);
Version Control. July March As above As above As above As above University of
-establishing on the 2009 2011 Edinburgh,
basis of the Toolkit CDLR and
produced by the NLS
Versions project24
develop what is
needed to provide
version information at
institutional repository
level to deliver
access to the correct
version, as requested
by the user, via both
the institutional
24
See at http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/versions/.
Page 34 of 44

repository and the

central aggregation
service;
Subject access
enhancements – to
improve resource
discovery and
increase the ability of
institutions to
showcase their
subject strengths; this
will involve machine-
to-machine
interaction with the
HILT25 web services CDLR,
July March
and the integration As above As above As above As above University of
2009 2011
into DSpace, EPrints Edinburgh
and Fedora of HILT-
driven drop-down
menus to assist in the
subject cataloguing of
resources, inter-
subject scheme
interoperability and
enhanced subject
retrieval through term
expansion;
Statistics reports– Sept March As above As above As above As above University of

this will involve 09 2011 Edinburgh,
implementing usage CDLR and
statistics and live NLS
feeds (through
RSS/Atom or email)
into the repository
platforms, as
25
HILT: High-Level Thesaurus Project; see at http://hilt.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/.
Page 35 of 44

informed by WP1; it
is anticipated that
such statistics might
include reports at
item, institutional and
cross-repository
levels for the
attention of individual
researchers,
research pools and
institutions;
Supporting
preservation of
repository content
– to provide a
preservation service
option for institutions
using the OAI-ORE
method as a tool for
the description and As a result of
transportation of the DCC
April Oct
aggregated content feasibility survey As above As above As above DCC/NLS
2010 2010
from institutional – but only at a
repositories to a conceptual level
central location, and
using preservation
policies for ingest into
a long-term storage
repository via the
recommended
framework defined in
WP2;
Supported Outcomes:
ix. Improved facilities; researcher-friendly repositories supporting research pooling and other collaborative work and with added value to encourage
Page 36 of 44

deposit;
x. Interoperability; Improved workflows and metadata exchange for seamless embedding of the repositories in the research and institutional processes;
xi. Improved rate of deposit; increased deposit rates leading to critical mass of research output available at both institutional and cross-repository levels.

Start Completion
WP4 – Developing an IRIScotland Policy Framework for Organisational and July 2009 March 2011 Leader: University of
Financial Sustainability Edinburgh
Overall Objective:
Objectives:
To develop – in partnership with the IRIScotland Council – an IRIScotland policy framework for organisational and financial sustainability.
Planned Activities
approach Basecamp)
Working with the July March Determine what • Agree common • Common Contact ERIS PM,
IRIScotland Council, 2009 2011 evidence is ‘business case’ for message to with all ERIS Project
SCURL, SLIC, needed to prove open access Scottish relevant team
Universities Scotland and that Scotland can mandate to be Institutions research
the Research Pools to now prove the distributed pools and
increase the number of absolute case for • Set of schedules
Scottish HEIs intent on Open Access in • Arrange and IRIScotland for focus
introducing mandatory HEI’s promote council council groups in
open access policies; events in line with meetings to place by
Set up and hold a ERIS Project (and discuss OA Nov 2009
series of council with SCURL?) across
events over the project Website in
two year project • Develop statistics duration place by
duration to of Scottish end Sept
promote the institutions with • Recurring 2009
adoption of
Page 37 of 44

mandatory Open access Scottish

policies. requirements ‘Mandate
and/or mandates watch’
Re-work the OATS report for
website in line with • Incorporate website
the IRIScotland OATS/IRIScouncil
council, or work into ERIS • Website for
incorporate into Site promotion of
development of OA activities
Main ERIS Project to HEI
site. influencers
and funders
Costing the value to Dec Dec Develop • Develop costing • ERIS Cost Develop ERIS PM,
Scottish researchers, 2009 2010 framework of framework model for approach ERIS Project
Scottish HEIs and considerations in repository to costing team
Scotland as a whole of a relation to adoption • Survey of Scottish operation of IR’s in
Scottish cross-repository of shared HEI’s Scottish
infrastructure – including infrastructure • Survey HEI’s by
the costs of implementing • Review potential results end
a shared metadata Produce survey for existing cost March
agreement, maintaining participating models for task • Report on 2010
adequate staffing levels institutions to (i.e LIFE/ESPIDA) cost of
to support interoperability, validate and repository Surveys
adopting the DCC prioritise focus operations and
curation lifecycle areas in Scotland analysis in
methodology – and the place by
potential cost of not Develop or acquire end Sept
supporting such an methodology 2010
infrastructure; required Gather
cost values in Report on
relation to focus cost of OA
areas infrastructu
re by end
Analyse outcomes Dec 2010
of survey and
framework
Page 38 of 44

Producing a cost model Sept March Develop business • Develop plan of • ERIS Draft plan ERIS PM,
and business plan to 2010 2011 plan for ongoing consultation with Ongoing for ERIS Project
ensure on-going financial IRIScotland/ERIS project and business discussion team,
viability of IRIScotland service IRIScotland plan and IRIScotland
including services arising council based on approval in council
from the consultation with ERIS findings place by
researchers during the end Feb
course of the project; • Produce business 2011
plan for review
and approval Agreement
to proceed
or wind up
by end
March
2011
Producing – in Sept March Develop • Develop plan of • ERIS Draft plan ERIS PM,
partnership with the 2010 2011 Governance plan consultation with Proposal of for ERIS Project
IRIScotland Council – a for ongoing project and ongoing discussion team,
governance structure IRIScotland/ERIS IRIScotland governance and IRIScotland
embedding IRIScotland in service council based on arrangement approval in council
the Scottish research ERIS findings s place by
environment; end Feb
• Produce 2011
governance plan
for review and Agreement
approval to proceed
or wind up
by end
March
2011
WP4 Outcomes:
xii. Improvements in education and training; enhanced knowledge and skills within institutions at all levels
xiii. Improved community collaboration; transferable best practices and service models;
Page 39 of 44

xiv. Improved rate of deposit; increased deposit rates leading to critical mass of research output available at both institutional and cross-repository levels
xv. Development of trust; increased user confidence – amongst researchers and institutional managers – in the value and longevity of repositories;
xvi. Demonstrated return on investment; increased confidence in the long-term ability of repositories to enhance visibility for Scottish research and, as a
result, the practical and commercial exploitation of the Scottish research base

Start Completion
WP5 – Project Management June 2009 March 2011 Leader: University of
Edinburgh
Overall Objective:
To cross-manage all the Work packages to ensure the cohesion of the project as a whole in partnership with a Delivery Team comprising the WP Leaders
Planned Activities
approach Basecamp)
To follow the PRINCE2 April March Follow JISC Sign off of project plan Project document Sign off of University
or similar project 2009 2011 Project (project start up) outputs as defined project plan of
management management in project plan in place by Edinburgh,
methodology, which will guidelines for Lists throughout project (section 4) end July ERIS PM
entail, in particular: production and as defined by other 2009
producing a work plan management of workpackages Project specialist
based on the proposal, project products as Agree full
including an evaluation documentation Preparation and defined by each scope of
mechanism for each management of meetings work package workpackage
WP; organising and Use PRINCE2 and minutes as required s by end
serving the project based approach to Benefits realisation Sept 2009
meetings (agenda, managing product Project Evaluations – plan (For Evidence
papers, minutes etc.); delivery and other quality plan based evaluations) Mid term
managing the project project control report by
budget; producing mechanisms Project Evaluations – Project quality plan end March
progress reports and the Benefits realisation 2010
final report; Facilitate use of
collaborative Project
Page 40 of 44

project closure and

management tool appropriate
(Basecamp) reporting by
end march
Ongoing evidence 2011 (to
based evaluation include all
of project activity evaluations
against plan work)
Ongoing
evaluation of
quality assurance
against project
deliverables
Management of
project budget in
liaison with UoE
and work package
teams
To meet the reporting April March Publish Reporting as required by Project reports as 6 monthly ERIS PM
requirements of JISC, 2009 2011 appropriate project project required formative and Project
SCURL and the lead reporting via evaluations Delivery
institution; project websites Undertake formative Formative as team
and through review of ERIS Project (6 evaluation reports milestones
proactive reporting monthly)
using online/social Summary report of
mechanisms such Evidence of social project social
as twitter, netvibes, networking activity Networking goals
wordpress etc (lessons learned)
Undertake 6
monthly formative
review of project
progress and
report back to JISC
in the event of any
significant change
Page 41 of 44

To establish appropriate April March Develop user Develop user User engagement Project ERIS PM
channels of 2009 2011 engagement plan engagement plan for plan website in and Project
communication to help for project – researchers place by end Delivery
build bridges between considering both Project website for Sept 2009 team
researchers, repository researchers and Develop user user engagement
managers, the project repository engagement plan for (link to WP1)
officers and the project professionals. repository managers
partners – this will
involve working in close Establish and Set up project websites
partnership with WP1 maintain social for project
and may also involve website for both communications/dissemi
setting up a dedicated repository nation and for user
project wiki, a social- managers and engagement
networking portal or researchers to
Facebook group; discuss issues
surrounding IR
work in Scotland
To manage the April March Development of a Develop fixed Dissemination plan Initial plan in ERIS PM
dissemination 2009 2011 plan of formal dissemination plan place by end and Project
programme in dissemination Summary report of Sept 2009 Delivery
collaboration with the activities Develop social project social team
WP officers, the networking strategy Networking goals Summary
partners and, as and Set up of a social (lessons learned) report of
when necessary, JISC; networking project social
strategy to engage networking
via blog posts and goals in
commenting etc place by end
March 2011
To organise April March Carry out the Project Dissemination Project event Project event ERIS PM
dissemination activities 2009 2011 organisation and event (SAC) held at SAC and Project
in close collaboration participation of two Event report by end Mar Delivery
with the relevant WPs significant events – Project Dissemination 2010 (link to team
one for event (Repository Fringe WP1)
researchers and 2010 – To be confirmed)
one for repository Project event
managers held in
Edinburgh
Page 42 of 44

July 2010
To commission and April March Summative WP3 Summative Summative WP1summati ERIS
liaise with external 2009 2011 evaluation of WP3 evaluations evaluation reports ve reporting project
consultant(s) for the deliverables by to correspond with in place end manager
summative evaluation; WP1 workstream Prepare for an run WP3 deliverables June 2010
Summative evaluation (link to WP1) (link to
Plan organise and independent to project WP1)
undertake delivery team Full project
summative Summative Full
evaluation of entire evaluation summative
ERIS Project evaluation in
place by end
March 2011
WP5 Outcomes: (NB – WP5 is essential for delivery of all ERIS Project WP)
Short Term Factors
(a) Improved facilities; researcher-friendly repositories supporting research pooling and other collaborative work and with added value to encourage
deposit;
(b) Interoperability; Improved workflows and metadata exchange for seamless embedding of the repositories in the research and institutional processes;
(c) Improvements in education and training; enhanced knowledge and skills within institutions at all levels;
(d) Improved community collaboration; transferable best practices and service models;
Long-term: (post project factors)
(a) Improved rate of deposit; increased deposit rates leading to critical mass of research output available at both institutional and cross-repository levels.
(b) Development of trust; increased user confidence – amongst researchers and institutional managers – in the value and longevity of repositories;
(c) Demonstrated return on investment; increased confidence in the long-term ability of repositories to enhance visibility for Scottish research and, as a
result, the practical and commercial exploitation of the Scottish research base
Page 43 of 44

Page 44 of 44

ERISprojectplanv1 0 (Web Version)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ERISprojectplanv1 0 (Web Version)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Project Acronym: ERIS Contact: James Toon

Version:1.0 Release Date:11/8/2009

Project Manager & Name: James Toon

Access  Project and JISC internal  General dissemination

Document title: JISC Project Plan 22683742.doc

Overview of Project......................................................................................................... ...................4

Document title: JISC Project Plan 22683742.doc

Document title: JISC Project Plan 22683742.doc

2. Aims and Objectives

Document title: JISC Project Plan 22683742.doc

• Increasing deposit rates via technical, policy or other means;

The four main objectives of the ERIS project are as follows:

i. To enhance the level of researchers’ engagement with repositories with a view to

This will entail:

a. Discussing with subject-specific research pools and targeted groups of individual

This will entail:

iii. To provide technological enhancements that will improve researcher-centric

Document title: JISC Project Plan 22683742.doc

This will entail:

iv. To develop an IRIScotland policy framework for organisational and financial

This will entail:

a. Campaigning – in partnership with the IRIScotland Council, SCURL, SLIC, Universities

1. User (researcher) level

Document title: JISC Project Plan 22683742.doc

Project document outputs

WP1 – Enhancing Researchers’ Engagement with Repositories

• Established ERIS Researcher and Research Pool communities

Document title: JISC Project Plan 22683742.doc

• Completed Researcher event (to be held at Scottish Agricultural College)

WP2 – Enhancing Curation and Preservation Processes within Institutions

• An agreed method and approach to surveying Scottish HEI’s curation policies

WP3 – Technological Enhancements for Improved Research-centric Functionality and

WP4 – Developing an IRIScotland Policy Framework for Organisational and Financial

• Common message explaining the business case for OA to Scottish Institutions

WP5 – Project Management

• Quality plan of project document outputs as defined in project plan

Document title: JISC Project Plan 22683742.doc

5. Project Outcomes (Vision and expected benefits)

• Short-term: (ERIS in-project success factors)

(a) Improved facilities; researcher-friendly repositories supporting research pooling and

• Long-term: (post project factors)

Document title: JISC Project Plan 22683742.doc

(c) Demonstrated return on investment; increased confidence in the long-term ability of

Stakeholder Interest / stake Importance

Risk Probability Severity Score Action to Prevent/Manage Risk

Document title: JISC Project Plan 22683742.doc

Document title: JISC Project Plan 22683742.doc

10. Intellectual Property Rights

Primary Partners Secondary Partners

12. Project Management

Project governance will be as follows;

Document title: JISC Project Plan 22683742.doc

13. Roles and Responsibilities

Responsibilities of the Project Board

Responsibilities of the Project Management Team

Responsibilities of the Project delivery team (Workpackage leaders)

Document title: JISC Project Plan 22683742.doc

• Participate actively and respectfully with other Parties in the project;

• Prepare for and organise institutional visits in good time;

• Prepare and present reports as required.

Project delivery team

[deleted from web version – contact James Toon for details]