Collaboration Summary

1. Collaboration Summary IMLS Applied Research Meeting March 1-18, 2003

2. Definition • Advance the mission of all participating organizations • Participating institutions maintain their institutional identity, strategic decision making, remain separate entities. • Undertake collaborative initiatives in order to accomplish more, and be more effectively, then we can individually.

3. Attributes of collaboration • Deep relationship, beyond cooperation, but… • Fundamentally changes both entities • Needs a shared problem/goal • Best equitable contribution, suggested 50/50. Can’t be 90/10. Make certain it feels equitable contribution • Trust of partners is critical to success of project. Too often this is missing component. Model for valuing assets of participants in a collaboration. • Passion by all parties—we need to do something about ‘X’ • Contribution of everyone must be valued. Contributions must be recognized by senior management. • Most successful collaborations have a sense of ownership by the participants. We gave birth to something

4. Issues • Multiple institutions, more than 2, do you have the same level of commitment to completion, but maybe not equal contribution to the project? Are sensible way to collaborate in unequal ways? • Collaborations may be more broadly defined than the definition the group has provided to include joint projects, consultancy, cooperation, formal partnerships (as defined in the NINCH Good Practices document. • Terminology can be confusing. Vocabulary is a serious problem. How do we do work in establishing and understanding one another if we don’t have a common vocabulary to work from?

5. What is the difference between cooperation and collaboration? Seems a fine line. How do we know the difference? Perhaps it’s when you are involved in planning it from the get go, it’s collaboration. Perhaps it’s when it advances your organization’s mission. Collaboration is more like dating, not a forced marriage • Collaboration often harder the more similar the partners who collaborate. Boasting rights are similar. Similar partners must share boasting rights

6. Research Issues • Encourage collaboration between data and content that plays well with others—interoperability standards, creation of a national repository of metadata on digital objects, creation of a national digital library of content.—9 potential IMLS role • Research the reward system in libraries, particularly university libraries, and museums, that will provide incentives for collaboration. Why are people increasing applying for IMLS grants with collaborative components?—8

7. Explore issues associated with the ownership of resources developed by the collaborative including • how is ownership allocated in a collaborative—equality, proportionate by investment—in includes all assets, digital content, website, software, hardware, etc. • How is responsibility for long term management/maintenance of resource divided, including sustainability, risk management tools, etc. • There are no norms, there isn’t even a language for dealing with this issue. • There are multiple approaches. Develop case studies.—7

8. Clearinghouse of potential partners/collaborators—researchers, other content owners, etc. • Develop a registry allowing individuals to match by skill sets, including volunteers, university personnel, organizations. • Currently largely collaborate within regional, but this could be broader, national—7 • Developing user groups: If people want to use content in different ways. How to deal with different user groups in a collaborative environment—4 • Move competition beyond the silo…to delivery, reaching new audiences and evaluate how well we’ve done it. 3

9. Computers and Collaboration • Research related to use of computers in collaboration • We don’t know enough about how we collaboration • how we could improve collaboration to make use of technology • to develop new tools to support collaboration. • The existing tools we have—email, Listservs, conference calls are too immature for want to do. • Still need face to face meetings to create the ‘trust’ factor—

10. Suggestions to IMLS and others • IMLS should get an update from all digitization projects and update on where are they now?” • Digital libraries—we all have some stuff, but it’s the services where we compete. • Collaboration long distance can be miserable, but if you care about what your doing…it can be better. • Reward system doesn’t reward collaboration it rewards competition. • Important to get work you’ve done noticed by top management

11. Comments • For-profit and museum/library collaborations—success/failures • International collaboration—should IMLS look at an supporting and international program similar to the program like NSF/JISC program • Definition of level of expected collaboration—50/50 is unrealistic; need to base involvement on who the partner is (organization, i.e. small museum, school; unit of the university, i.e. computer science; and international involvement) • Nadia Caidi dissertation—jump start collaboration in Eastern Europe. • Evaluation study of urge for collaboration that have stressed collaboration • Arizona—6 years of cross culture collaboration. Reward system is based on collaboration. • Get Tom Moritz book title—The social life of information—John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid. • IMLS will be checking the status of the digitization projects through the OAI project.