JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for LIS-RAREBOOKS Archives


LIS-RAREBOOKS Archives

LIS-RAREBOOKS Archives


LIS-RAREBOOKS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LIS-RAREBOOKS Home

LIS-RAREBOOKS Home

LIS-RAREBOOKS  September 2008

LIS-RAREBOOKS September 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Some results from the International Survey of Library & Musuem Digitization Projects

From:

James Moses <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mailing list for rare books and Special Collections librarians <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 15:34:22 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (74 lines)

Primary Research Group has published: The International Survey of Library & 
Museum Digitization Projects,  ISBN 1-57440-105-X. The study presents data 
from more than 100 library & museum digitization programs from academic, 
public and special libraries and museums in the United States, Canada, 
Australia, Italy, the UK and other countries. The mean annual budget for the 
digitization projects that contributed to the sample was $122,408, with a 
range from $0 to $1.963 million.  The reports presents data on sources of 
funding, the outlook for raising money for additional projects, collaboration 
within and outside of institutions, staffing of digitization projects, spending on 
hardware and software, practices on rights, permissions and copyright 
clearance, outsourcing, staff training, impact of digitization on preservation 
mediums, cataloging issues, marketing of digitization projects and other 
aspects of library and museum digitization project management. Data is broken 
out by size and type of digitization project and by size and type of institution. 
Data is presented separately for text, photograph, audio, and film/video 
intensive projects. 

Just of few of the report’s many findings are that:

More than 60% of the funding for the projects in the sample is derived from 
the library budget itself.  For U.S. libraries, close to 64% of funds for 
digitization projects comes from the library budget.

A shade more than 20% of the organizations in the sample believe that the 
outlook for raising money for digitization projects from outside sources is not 
favorable, while more than 43% characterize it as “not too bad,” more than 
32% call it “pretty good” and more than 4% characterize it as excellent.

More than 53% of the organizations in the sample have teamed up with 
another department or faculty of the organization to work jointly on a 
digitization project.

The institutions in the sample had a mean of 4.43 individuals who spent at 
least part of their working day on digitization projects, with a maximum of 20.

The organizations in the sample spent a mean of $21,839 on equipment to 
copy, duplicate, record, photograph, scan or transform content of any kind 
into digital formats.  Median spending was only $3,000 and the range was $0-
$330,000.

The mean number of hours spent obtaining rights permissions or copyright 
clearance of the organizations in the sample was 221.04.  

Nearly 49% of the organizations in the sample outsource some form of 
digitization, in whole or in part, to an outside party.  Museums were more likely 
than other organizations to do this kind of outsourcing; more than 61% of the 
museums in the sample outsource some form of digitization to an outside 
party. Projects that were photograph-intensive were also more likely to 
describe themselves as being deficient in mastering digitization skills; more 
than 31% of the organizations in this category said they had a great deal to 
learn, while another 25% said that they had gotten better but still had a long 
way to go.  

More than 61% of the organizations in the sample had some form of digital 
asset management software.  52% had their own in-house system, while 
another 9.2% share a system with other departments or divisions of their 
organization.

44.68% of the organizations in the sample said that digitization had had no 
impact on their use of microfilming or other preservation mediums.  

The mean percentage of total labor time required for digitization projects that 
is accounted for by cataloging and metadata tasks is about 37%, with a range 
of zero to 85%.  

Only 8.16% of the organizations in the sample had completely outsourced a 
digitization project to another organization such as a major museum or 
university that specializes in such projects.  

17.7% of the organizations in the sample license or rent use of any aspect of 
their digital collection to outside parties.  

For further information view our website at www.PrimaryResearch.com.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager