Beagrie.com

We are delighted to announce that the Preserving Email technology watch report has now been published by the DPC. It is published electronically as a PDF and is now free to download from the DPC website at: http://dx.doi.org/10.7207/twr11-01.  It was previously available as a preview to DPC members only from December 2011. Charles Beagrie are managing editors for the Technology Watch Series and have worked closely with the DPC in the production of this report. The full press release for the report is copied below and you are welcome to forward it to interested colleagues.

For immediate release

Email tomorrow … and next year … and forever

Preserving Email, a new report from the DPC gives practical advice on how to ensure email remains accessible

Email is a defining feature of our age and a critical element in all manner of transactions. Industry and commerce depend upon email; families and friendships are sustained by it; government and economies rely upon it; communities are created and strengthened by it.  Voluminous, pervasive and proliferating, email fills our days like no other technology.  Complex, intangible and essential, email manifests important personal and professional exchanges.  The jewels are sometimes hidden in massive volumes of ephemera, and even greater volumes of trash. But it is hard to remember how we functioned before the widespread adoption of email in public and private life.

Institutions, organizations and individuals have a considerable investment in – and legal requirements to safeguard – large collections of email.  IT managers and archivists have long recognised that email requires careful management if it is to be available in the long term but practical advice about how to do this is surprisingly sparse.  So a new ‘Technology Watch Report’ from the Digital Preservation Coalition (DPC) will be of wide interest.

‘The first email was probably sent by researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1965’, explained Chris Prom of the University of Illinois, the report’s author. ‘It has long since gone missing, deemed too trivial to be worth preserving.’

‘Since then email has become a valuable documentary form because people typically use it to write things that were not intended for wide revelation at the time. So it can contain material which researchers – and high court judges – find incredibly useful.’

‘Users normally shoulder the ultimate responsibility for managing and preserving their own email.  This exposes important records to needless risks and is counterproductive in many cases. But it doesn’t have to be like this.  Individuals and organizations can lay the foundation for long term access so long as they understand the technical standards that underlie email systems. Based on this understanding, they can implement sensible preservation strategies.’

‘The Preserving Email report provides a comprehensive advanced introduction to the topic for anyone who has to manage a large email archive in the long term: and in the long term that will be most of us.’

Gareth Knight of King’s College London welcomed the report.  ‘Preserving Email provides an excellent overview of the topic, drawing together observations made in a number of research projects to provide a succinct overview of the legal, technical, and cultural issues that must be addressed to ensure that these digital assets can be curated and preserved in the long-term. Its conclusion, providing a set of pragmatic, easy-to-understand recommendations that individuals and institutions may apply to better manage their email archive, highlights the complexity of email preservation.  It also sends a clear message that it is something that everyone can perform.’

The British Library is among the agencies currently working on new strategies to preserve email.  Maureen Pennock of the British Library welcomed in particular the two short case studies which are included in the report. ‘The report includes case studies from the Bodleian Library and the Medical Research Council which are really useful in making sense of the practical problems which we face, and how to resolve them in practice not just theory.  They show what can be achieved  and underline just how useful the core email standards are.’

Neil Beagrie of Charles Beagrie Ltd, managing editor and principal investigator of the Technology Watch Series highlighted the plans for more reports in the series in the near future.  ‘Preserving Email is the first of five planned publications from leading experts in the new DPC Technology Watch Series.  The format of the new reports has had a major redesign, and ISSN and DOI identifiers have been added.  We hope these features will enhance the use, citation and impact of the reports. Further reports on Preservation of Moving Picture and Sound, Intellectual Property Rights for Digital Preservation, Digital Forensics and Preservation, and Preservation Trust and Continuing Access for e-Journals will be released later in 2012. The DPC and Charles Beagrie hope the new series will be a significant contribution to encouraging digital preservation and best practice worldwide.’

Richard Ovenden, Deputy Director of the Bodleian Libraries at Oxford University and Chair of the DPC welcomed the report.  ‘This is the tenth anniversary of the Coalition, which was launch in the House of Commons in February 2002.  One of the ways we are marking this year is by releasing a new set of reports to update and extend the advice we offer.  The Technology Watch Reports are a popular and lasting help to anyone interesting in ensuring that their digital memory available in the long term, and we work hard to ensure they are accessible as well as authoritative.  This new report of Preserving Email will be particularly relevant to a wide readership so it’s a great way to kick off our tenth anniversary year.’

The report is online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.7207/twr11-01

Notes for editors

1.    Preserving Email (DPC Technology Watch Report 11-01, ISSN 2048-7916, Digital Preservation Coalition 2011) was written by Chris Prom of the University of Illinois.  It is published electronically as a PDF and is now free to download from the DPC website at: http://www.dpconline.org / … It was previously available as a preview to DPC members only from December 2011.
2.    Chris Prom is the Assistant University Archivist at the University of Illinois, Urbana USA.  During 2009–10, as part of his Fulbright Distinguished Scholar Award, Prom directed a research project at the Centre for Archive and Information Studies at the University of Dundee, Scotland, on ‘Practical Approaches to Identifying, Preserving, and Providing Access to Electronic Records’. This included a major focus on the preservation of email.
3.    The report is published by the DPC in association with Charles Beagrie Ltd. Neil Beagrie, Director of Consultancy at Charles Beagrie Ltd, was commissioned to act as principal investigator for and managing editor of this Series in 2011. He has been further supported by an Editorial Board drawn from DPC members and peer reviewers who comment on texts prior to release.
4.    The Digital Preservation Coalition (DPC) is an advocate and catalyst for digital preservation, enabling our members to deliver resilient long-term access to content and services, and helping them derive enduring value from digital collections.  We raise awareness of the importance of the preservation of digital material and the attendant strategic, cultural and technological issues. We are a not-for-profit membership organisation and we support our members through knowledge exchange, capacity building, assurance, advocacy and partnership.  Our vision is to make our digital memory accessible tomorrow. For more information about the DPC see: http://www.dpconline.org/
5.    The Technology Watch Report series was established in 2002 and has been one of the Coalition’s most enduring contributions to the wider digital preservation community.  They exist to provide authoritative support and foresight to those engaged with digital preservation or having to tackle digital preservation problems for the first time. These publications support members work forces, they identify disseminate and discuss best practice and they lower the barriers to participation in digital preservation. Each ‘Technology Watch Report’ analyses a particular topic pertinent to digital preservation and presents an evaluation of workable solutions, a review the potential of emerging solutions and posits solutions that might be appropriate for different contexts.  The reports are written by leaders-in-the-field and are peer-reviewed prior to publication.
6.    Future reports in the series include:
·    Preserving Moving Picture and Sound, Richard Wright (BBC Research and Development)
·    Digital Forensics for Preservation, Jeremy Leighton-John (British Library)
·    Intellectual Property Rights for Digital Preservation, Andrew Charlesworth (Bristol University)
·    Preservation, Trust and E-Journals, Neil Beagrie (Charles Beagrie Ltd)

###

Sharp-eyed visitors to the website will have noticed  a series of upgrades and re-designs to the site over the past few months. The last of these is now complete. Some of the main updates are as follows:

Clients and Projects: We have introduced a new hierarchical format for the Clients page. You can now see a list of  current and past clients in different sectors and request to see projects for them and finally project descriptions as needed. This re-design is to accommodate expanding work for the company and hopefully is less cluttered and easier to navigate as client and project information continues to grow. There is now also space to present a fully up to date clients list.

Presentations – our Recent Talks  during 2011 have been added to the Publication page.

KRDS: Keeping Research Data Safe (KRDS): Cost/benefit studies, tools, and methodologies focussing on long-lived data has its own dedicated webpage and can be accessed via a tab from anywhere within the website.

RSS feed – you can subscribe by RSS feed to the Charles Beagrie Blog.

I am delighted to announce that the first of the new Technology Watch Reports Series that Charles Beagrie Ltd been producing for the Digital Preservation Coalition has just been released as a preview to DPC members. It is also the first report in the new series design and report format. I’m just back from the winter solstice at Stonehenge this morning, so I feel we have done all the rites and it is an auspicious time to launch the first report in the series!

The report ‘Preserving Email’ is authored by Chris Prom, Assistant University Archivist at the University of Illinois. During 2009-10, as part of the Fulbright Distinguished Scholar Award, Chris directed a research project at the Centre for Archive and Information Studies at the University of Dundee concerning “Practical Approaches to Identifying, Preserving, and Providing Access to Electronic Records”. This included a major focus on preservation of email.

Neil Beagrie, Director of Consultancy at Charles Beagrie Ltd, was commissioned to act as principal investigator and managing editor of the new series in 2011.  The managing editor has been further supported by an Editorial Board drawn from DPC members and peer reviewers who have commented on the text prior to release.  The Editorial Board comprises William Kilbride (Chair), Neil Beagrie (Series Editor), Janet Delve (University of Portsmouth), Tim Keefe (Trinity College Dublin), Andrew McHugh (University of Glasgow), Dave Thompson (Wellcome Library).

The full text of the report is available now to DPC members (from the DPC member web pages – accessible by DPC members only) but it is expected to have its wider public release on the DPC website in late January or early February 2012. The public release and url for the public version will be announced on release.

It is a busy time of year with very little time to update the blog but a short update on current and future projects for 2011-2013 may of interest:

Economic Evaluation of Research Data Infrastructure – a study for the Economic and Social Research Council in the UK. This is being conducted jointly by Charles Beagrie Ltd with Prof John Houghton of the Centre for Strategic Economic Studies at Victoria University and is looking at the economic impact of the Economic and Social Data Service in the UK. Such studies on the impact of research data services are rare and we have the opportunity to test some experimental approaches. Already we have interesting data and I think this is going to be a very significant study. We are about half-way though – having started mid-July 2011 and will finish in January 2012.

Smart Research Framework (SRF) and Biomedical Research Infrastructure Software Service kit (BRISSkit). We are  junior partners in two of the four Research Data Management projects in the JISC University Modernisation Fund shared services programme. In both we are supporting their work on developing cost/benefit and return on investment  cases. Both are great projects so I would encourage you to take a look. They will complete in the first half of next year.

Research 360 – just starting up at the University of Bath and will run until March 2013. The Project addresses the long-tail of high quality small science characterised by applied research and faculty-industry partnerships. We will contribute to building on and applying the I2S2/KRDS Benefits Toolkit with a focus on faculty research data drivers for the Research Excellence Framework (REF).

DPC Technology Watch Series – work is also progressing  for the five titles in the new DPC Technology Watch Series. I’m really enjoying working  as series editor with William Kilbride at the DPC  and the authors and keeping up to date on cutting-edge developments. Look out for the first release in the New Year (or from December if you are a DPC member).

I’m pleased to announce the release today of the Report ‘Benefits from the Infrastructure Projects in the JISC Managing Research Data Programme‘ prepared by Charles Beagrie Ltd for the JISC.

JISC’s Managing Research Data programme has invested nearly £2M, in a strand of eight Research Data Management Infrastructure (RDMI) projects to provide the UK Higher Education sector with examples of good research data management.

The eight projects studied in the report have described a wide range of key benefits from investments in research data infrastructure including:

Ability to cite shared data (Admiral Project, University of Oxford):

Integrated thinking around research data management (IDMB Project, University of Southampton):

Enhanced data sharing and discovery (FISHnet Project, Freshwater Biological Association and King’s College London);

Research efficiency, rapid access to data (I2S2 Project, Universities of Bath/Cambridge/Southampton, Charles Beagrie and the Science and Technology Facilities Council);

Clear and accessible guidance (Incremental Project, Universities of Cambridge and Glasgow);

Improving data management plans, policies and institutional settings (MaDAM Project University of Manchester;

Cost Savings through Centralisation and Virtualisation (Sudamih Project, University of Oxford).

Our report provides an analysis and synthesis of all the benefits and metrics identified by the eight RDMI projects in their benefits case studies, the benefits and enhancements that accrued to existing tools and methodologies from them, and the emerging business cases (as of June 2011) for sustainability being built by the RDMI projects. A brief overview is available on the JISC webpage with the report itself.

The KRDS-I2S2 Digital Preservation Benefits Analysis Project is pleased to announce the release of the KRDS Digital Preservation Benefits Analysis Toolkit. Development of the toolkit has been funded by JISC. The worksheets, guidance documentation and exemplar test cases can be downloaded from the project website.

The Toolkit consists of two tools: the KRDS Benefits Framework (Tool 1); and the Value-chain and Benefits Impact tool (Tool 2). Each tool consists of a detailed guide and worksheet(s). Both tools have drawn on partner case studies and previous work on benefits and impact for digital curation/preservation. This experience has provided a series of common examples of generic benefits that are employed in both tools for users to modify or add to as required.

The KRDS Benefits Framework (Tool 1) is the “entry-level” tool requiring Less experience and effort to implement and can be used as a stand-alone tool in many tasks. It can also be the starting point and provide input to the use of the Value-chain and Impact analysis.

The Value-chain and Benefits Impact analysis (Tool 2) is the more advanced tool in the Toolkit and requires more experience and effort to implement. It is likely to be most useful in a smaller sub-set of longer-term and intensive activities such as evaluation and strategic planning.

The combined Toolkit provides a very flexible set of tools, worksheets, and lists of examples of generic benefits and potential metrics. These are available for use in different combinations appropriate to needs and level of expertise.

Guides for the toolkit and each individual tool and case studies of completed examples of the worksheets provide documentation and support for your own implementation.

In addition we have updated the KRDS Factsheet (new version 2 July 2011) and the KRDS User Guide (new version 2 July 2011) on the KRDS web site. The benefits toolkit is also linked from there. For future reference please bookmark the KRDS web site as all the latest KRDS tools and materials and updates are/will be accessible from that access point.

There was a very successful end of project dissemination workshop and lively discussion last week on implementing the toolkit with funders and other attendees. A full report of the workshop and links to the presentations are provided below. The Benefits Analysis Toolkit will be released on 31 July from the project web site and the KRDS web site.

Tools Background

This is a six month project funded by JISC, testing developing and documenting a toolkit consisting of two evolving tools, the KRDS Benefits Framework and the Value Chain and Benefits Impact tool. The Benefits Framework is the entry level tool and Value Chain and Benefits Impact tool is more advanced with a narrower range of applicable activities. Any benefit from digital curation should fit within the Framework and can be reworded and adapted to fit with the local application. From the funders perspective the easily tailored benefits offer a consistent and powerful way of stimulating thinking. The toolkit’s official release date is July 31^st.

Welcome and Project Background (Liz Lyon UKOLN) [Presentation]

The Toolset (Neil Beagrie, Charles Beagrie Ltd) [Presentation]

Case Studies

Dipak Kalra (Centre for Health Informatics and Multi-professional Education (CHIME) at UCL)

The toolkit was used in an MRC data support service investigation to understand how data sharing takes place. He presented results via a ‘virtual study’ that took all six studies into account to be more comprehensive. Generic benefits were taken from the tool and given a localised expression etc. He summarised that the tool should work for these kinds of studies though some parts are more applicable. Working through a toolkit could be of value for studies and particularly useful for putting forward a case for funding or prioritising resource utilisation within a study. Completing the spreadsheet and working out weightings might be nicely undertaken in a team workshop.

[Presentation]

Catherine Hardman (Archaeology Data Service)

In this case the toolkit was used from the point of view of a repository (more a macro level than micro), for looking in particular at issues of cost in the lifecycle. Archives often have to help justify costs/ effort associated with digital preservation even if they are well established. This can be used to address a range of audiences and with different levels of complexity- in individual projects or within project teams to boost cases for support. The value chain can help with identifying different values for different audiences. Quantification of impact can help in a number of ways: in research bid terms it helps justify resources; in archive preparation terms it helps with selection and retention decisions. The tool can be used as a light touch to help persuade stakeholders of benefits or for deeper insight into project planning decisions.

[Presentation]

Monica Duke (SageCite Project)

Here the tools were used to assess the benefits of data citation, an undertaking with a project perspective based on an organisation whose main business is science. It showed direct benefits as well as indirect ones such as better discovery of network models and better access. The Benefits Framework was easy to apply and helped to articulate benefits, although an intermediary may be required to facilitate the process.

[Presentation]

Matthew Woollard (UK Data Archive (UKDA) at University of Essex)

The tools were put into practice at the UK Data Archive and used to emphasise benefits to stakeholders. They helped to prioritise internal activities, justify costs to stakeholders and give an understanding of the service impact. They showed where value added is needed, where value is added, and who can benefit and when. The framework for activities seems to be where it will be of most use. It is important to note that generic benefits may have impacts to more than one stakeholder.

[Presentation]

Discussion

Q: What is the ongoing support for the tool?

• It will be present on the project website with a persistent web archive copy. There is a commitment to make it continuously available and it may be updated in future in light of future projects and applications. There is extensive documentation and if the need were felt for more support there is the potential for consultancy and assistance from Charles Beagrie Ltd as required.

Q: Do you see it incorporated within an outline data management plan?

• I can definitely see an advantage in the benefits framework. You can also use the value chain in a data heavy project, possibly when sitting down as a project group.

Q: Are we going to get too many statements on value, many of which are blatantly obvious rather than generically just true? If expressions are generic it would be better to cut them out.

• The tool is for focussing the mind and the generic examples only a starting point for what should be customised specific statements of value. In terms of presentation in the user guide we present an alternative version of the completed Framework with more specific examples and level of detail for the benefits. The user should have the ability to select those points of greatest impact for specific stakeholders and develop them ie not presenting a generic benefit.
• We are interested in ensuring researchers can do research and explaining value to the government and other stakeholders. If you’re promoting data sharing benefits then also promoting them to an internal audience is important and powerful for motivation.
• Research Councils can be deluged with metrics- it is better to have a few, simple and powerfully chosen. Case studies are incredibly powerful though not sufficient on their own. You spend little time discussing them compared to the time taken to create them. A case study should actually illustrate a metric.
• The Benefits Framework looks helpful in learning and preparation- in evaluation it should then be less necessary.
• Part of what we are doing is upping the game with studies and funders. Funders will need to respond proactively. There is a need for a more forceful tool but it is premature to deliver it now, such as a planning tool allowing the user to take up to three actions and workup a two or three year action plan. This is a possible direction of travel in the future.

Q: Homogenisation? What does it mean for funders when there is a long checklist of benefits? If established where will it lead us? Funders will have to look closely and make sure they are used carefully to draw out where we want benefits to accrue. Who is this making life easier for?

• Hopefully for researchers. They often have a box to fill in anyway but generally it is not well structured. The framework is fast to use, not a heavyweight commitment. We would hope it could make filling in of a benefits statement richer without much extra work as it provides a more advanced starting point for brainstorming the benefits.
• This has to be looked at against administrative burden. If it enables the user to identify and realise benefits they otherwise would not have realised then it has an advantage. If it isn’t repaid by better realisation of benefits then it deserves to fail.
• The process of using the tool can have valuable results in itself.
• Many benefits feed into other benefits. The funder should ask for requirements, it’s not necessary to show everything. This is a platform that everyone can use in a way that benefits them.
• There is value in prioritisation and communication. If we can work with researchers to highlight the key impacts of what they’re doing then the tool when simply done is of real value.

Q: We are talking about potential benefits- they haven’t actually been achieved. I can see the theoretical value but am worried these benefits could be three or four years ahead of what we can actually achieve.

• The time element of the framework does bring that in. We’re trying to think not just of the long term but how to get there and any benefits along the way. The element is there but you must have some degree of caution with how you apply this tool in the same way as any other.

Q: You mentioned OCLC is a partner in the project. Are they involved because of their interest in cataloguing and metadata?

• Our partner is the research division within OCLC which has a broad range of interests within digital library research. Brian Lavoie who has had an important input to this project and KRDS is a research scientist there. As an economist he has taken a close interest in the economics and benefits of digital preservation and this has been an important theme within OCLC Research – hence their interest and active participation in the project.

Q: I’m not sure who’s going to use the tool. What audience are you promoting it to? Will it mean a generic standard will be adopted?

• Different sectors or disciplines are different. There aren’t homogenous states so there will always be bespoke relevant next steps in working from the tools.
• Examples of all the common benefits listed are not seen in every project. There should always be a degree of selection so you wouldn’t end up with homogenous benefits in every case. Generic benefits should also be customised and expressed in ways specific to a particular project or service.
• What you may have to do is demonstrate your benefits to a wider audience not just a primary beneficiary so sometimes the wider list of benefits is also helpful. It is good to put in front of workers to demonstrate why things are done in a certain way. The audience is not as wide as we would like it to be but the value to those who can use it is great.
• The case studies presented are tailored towards particular projects/services but it can be adapted without too much additional tailoring. There may be elements which need to be tweaked.
• I think there is value beyond the digital preservation community particularly for the Framework and maybe other versions could be needed tailored to those other audiences.

• Arguments for further funding are always made on the science; informatics communities to some extent are disenfranchised. Anything we can do that supports honesty and helps to get discussion going within studies by linking benefits to science and data management must be good. If the Framework can accommodate different perspectives of benefits and allows them to be joined up in the story then we should try it out to more people.
• There can be reciprocal benefits or benefits with clear knock on effects to each other. Actions may give benefits to the user, which give benefits to the creator.
• Could there be eventual development of a web/matrix of benefits? Not one-to-one or even two-way but a network with flow going around it.

Q: Good ideas unless heavily marketed don’t take off. Even if there is a benefit to a tool it wouldn’t be given unless people know to use it. Are there steps funders would advise to encourage researchers and services pro-actively in seizing benefits and using the tools?

• Will people be persuaded to use the tool to compete? You only compete if a competition is created.
• Once certain good policies are floating around everyone uses them to tick the box whether they are applicable or not.

Q: Will presentations from the workshop be available later?

• Yes we intend to make them available later and a short write-up of the day and key areas of discussion.

I’m busy preparing with project colleagues for the dissemination workshop for the JISC  Digital Preservation Benefits Analysis Tools project in London on Tuesday.

The Toolkit is nearing its final version and we are adding case studies and worked examples ready for online release at the end of this month.

For those looking for an early taster (and not attending the workshop), here is a quick preview:

The Toolkit consists of two tools: the KRDS Benefits Framework (now in public version 3); and the Value-chain and Benefits Impact tool (now in public version 2). Each tool consists of a more detailed guide and worksheet(s). Both tools have drawn on partner case studies and previous work on benefits and impact for digital curation/preservation. This experience has provided a series of common examples of generic benefits that are employed in both tools for users to modify or add to as required.

It is designed for use by a wide audience including funders, researchers and project staff, and personnel in university central services, data archives and repositories.

I think the project has moved the usability of the KRDS Benefits Framework and the Value-chain and Impact tool on immensely from their early research project roots. Hopefully both existing and new users will find the new Toolkit a big improvement and valuable in their day to day work.

We will announce its release when finalised at the end of July via various email lists and this blog.

We are pleased to announce that registration is now open for the workshop to disseminate the Digital Preservation Benefit Analysis Toolset and accompanying materials such as user guides and factsheets to the research community.

Workshop registration is free but please note that places are limited and early registration is advised. Further details of the workshop are as follows:

12.30 -16.00 Tuesday 12th July, 2011 South Bank University, Central London

Programme:
12.30 – 13.15 Registration and buffet lunch
13.15 – 13.25 Welcome and Project Background (Liz Lyon UKOLN)
13.25 – 13.55 The Toolset (Neil Beagrie, Charles Beagrie Ltd)
13.55 – 14.50 Disciplinary Test Sites and Applications (chair Manjula Patel UKOLN)

• Dipak Kalra (Centre for Health Informatics and Multi-professional Education at UCL)
• Matthew Woollard (UK Data Archive University of Essex)
• Liz Lyon and Monica Duke (SageCite Project)
• Catherine Hardman (Archaeology Data Service)

14.50 – 15.00 Implications for Funders (Neil Beagrie)
15.00 – 15.20 Break and refreshments
15.20 – 16.00 Plenary Discussion and Questions (chair Liz Lyon, UKOLN)
16.00 Close
—————————
Background

The “Digital Preservation Benefit Analysis Tools” project is funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) and runs from 1st February to 31 July 2011.

The project has tested and reviewed the combined use of the Keeping Research Data Safe (KRDS) Benefits Framework and the Value Chain and Impact Analysis tool, which were first applied in the I2S2 project for assessing the benefits and impact of digital preservation of research data. We have extended their utility to, and adoption within, the JISC community by providing user review and guidance for the tools and creating an integrated toolset. The project consortium consists of a mix of user institutions, projects, and disciplinary data services committed to the testing and exploitation of these tools and the lead partners in their original creation.

The project plan is on the project website and the project outputs will be available from the website during the summer.

The project partners are UKOLN and the Digital Curation Centre at the University of Bath,the Centre for Health Informatics and Multi-professional Education (CHIME) at University College London , the UK Data Archive (University of Essex), the Archaeology Data Service (University of York), OCLC Research, and Charles Beagrie Limited.

The Digital Preservation Coalition and Charles Beagrie Limited are delighted to announce a collaboration to produce 5 new DPC Technology Watch Reports. The collaboration follows a DPC call for proposals issued in December last year and selection of Charles Beagrie Limited as the preferred bidder.

The collaboration will produce a series of 5 Technology Watch Reports over the next 12 months under the general supervision of an editorial board and Neil Beagrie as principal investigator and commissioning editor. The 5 proposed reports and their authors are as follows:

• Preserving Email, Chris Prom
• Preserving Moving Picture and Sound, Richard Wright
• Intellectual Property Rights for Preservation, Andrew Charlesworth
• Digital Forensics and Preservation, Jeremy Leighton John
• Trust in Post Cancellation Access Services, Neil Beagrie

The DPC is establishing an editorial board for the series. It will be chaired by William Kilbride, Executive Director of the DPC.

The collaboration represents an exciting new development for the DPC and Charles Beagrie Ltd and the opportunity is being taken to re-vamp the design and layout of the new series. Content outlines for individual reports will be shared with DPC members and shaped by their needs and requirements. DPC members will have a period of privileged advance access to each report prior to wider public release.

The DPC Technology Watch Report series was established in 2002 and has been one of the Coalition’s most enduring contributions to the wider digital preservation community.  They exist to provide authoritative support and foresight to those engaged with digital preservation or having to tackle digital preservation problems for the first time. These publications support members work forces, they identify disseminate and discuss best practices and they lower the barriers to participation in digital preservation.

‘Each ‘Technology Watch Report’ analyses a particular topic in digital preservation, evaluating workable solutions, and investigating new tools and techniques appropriate for different contexts,’ explained William Kilbride of the DPC.  ‘The reports are written by leaders-in-the-field and are peer-reviewed prior to publication.  The intended audience is worldwide, especially in the UK, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, USA, and Canada.’

‘We expect that these reports will have a wide readership,’ explained Neil Beagrie, the commissioning editor.  ‘The audience includes members and non-members of the coalition; staff of commercial and public agencies; repository managers, librarians and archivists charged with managing electronic resources; senior staff and executives of intellectual property organizations in the private and public sectors; those who teach and train information scientists; as well as policy advisors requiring an advanced introduction to specific issues and researchers developing DP solutions.’

Further publicity on each report in the series will be released over the course of the next 12 months to DPC members and the wider community.  The draft outline of contents for the first report – Preserving Email – has already been compiled and will be distributed shortly.

• To find out more about the DPC and its Technology Watch series, including the current ones in the set, see: http://www.dpconline.org/advice/technology-watch-reports
• For more about Charles Beagrie Ltd, see: http://www.beagrie.com/