Disaster Planning and Trustworthy Digital Repositories
Transcript of Disaster Planning and Trustworthy Digital Repositories
Frank
2
1.Introduction........................................................................................................................4
2.LiteratureReview...............................................................................................................52.1DigitalPreservation....................................................................................................................5
2.1.1LOCKSS.......................................................................................................................................62.1.2iRODS.........................................................................................................................................7
2.2DigitalCuration..........................................................................................................................72.3Trust..........................................................................................................................................8
2.3.1TRAC...........................................................................................................................................82.3.2DRAMBORA................................................................................................................................92.3.3DataSealofApproval...............................................................................................................10
2.4ThreatstoDigitalCollections....................................................................................................112.5PlanningforDisasters...............................................................................................................12
2.5.1DisasterResponseandRecovery.............................................................................................132.5.2RiskManagement....................................................................................................................142.5.3BusinessContinuityPlanning...................................................................................................14
3Methodology.....................................................................................................................153.1SelectionofSites......................................................................................................................153.2DiscussionofEightSites...........................................................................................................16
3.2.1Chronopolis..............................................................................................................................163.2.2HathiTrust................................................................................................................................173.2.3Inter-UniversityConsortiumforPoliticalandSocialResearch(ICPSR)....................................173.2.4MATRIX.....................................................................................................................................183.2.5NationalLibraryofAustralia....................................................................................................183.2.6Portico......................................................................................................................................183.2.7TheInternetArchive................................................................................................................193.2.8TheMetaArchiveCooperative.................................................................................................19
3.3DocumentAnalysis...................................................................................................................203.4Interviews................................................................................................................................223.5InterviewAnalysis....................................................................................................................23
4.Findings............................................................................................................................254.1IncentiveforCreation...............................................................................................................254.2Documentation........................................................................................................................284.3ProcessofCreation..................................................................................................................314.4Obstacles.................................................................................................................................334.5TestingthePlans......................................................................................................................354.6AccesstoDisasterPlanDocumentation....................................................................................36
5.Discussion.........................................................................................................................38
6.Conclusion........................................................................................................................40
7.Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................41
References............................................................................................................................42
AppendixA:ConsenttoParticipateinaResearchStudyInterview.......................................48
AppendixB:QuestionsforSemi-StructuredInterview..........................................................50
Frank
3
Table1:InitialListofRepositories................................................................................................16Table2:AvailableDisasterPlanningDocumentation...................................................................20Table3:ParticipantsInterviewed.................................................................................................22Table4:DescriptionofDocumentCodingScheme......................................................................24
Figure1:CertificationandDisasterPlanningDocumentation.....................................................27Figure2:TRACAuditResults........................................................................................................28Figure3:DisasterPlanningDocumentation.................................................................................29Figure4:Obstacles.......................................................................................................................33Figure5:ObstaclesandDocumentation......................................................................................35Figure6:Access............................................................................................................................38
Frank
4
1.IntroductionDisasterresponseandrecoveryplanningremainsoneofthemostimportantcomponentsofapreservationprogramindigitalrepositories,andalsooneoftheleastunderstood.TheadoptionofstandardsandmodelsforpreservationsuchastheAuditandCertificationofTrustworthyDigitalRepositoriesandtheOpenArchivalInformationSystem(OAIS)modelhavehelpedtoclarifyandilluminatebestpracticesinthedigitalpreservationcommunity.However,ourunderstandingofdisasterplanningfordigitalrepositoriesremainslimited.InanarticlewrittenforWiredMagazine,ChrisAndersonarguedthatwearecurrentlyinthe“PetabyteAge”(Anderson,2008).Thisageismarkedbyanexponentialincreaseindigitaldata.Thisproliferationincludesscholarlyresearchdataaswellasdigitalinformationcreatedforentertainmentandpersonaluse,“thedigitaluniverse—informationthatiseithercreated,captured,orreplicatedindigitalform—was281exabytesin2007.In2011,theamountofdigitalinformationproducedintheyearshouldequalnearly1,800exabytes,or10timesthatproducedin2006”(Gantzetal.,2011,3).Intermsofstorage,“2007markedthe‘crossover’yearinwhichmoredigitaldatawascreatedthanthereisdatastoragetohostit”(Berman,2008,52).Thistippingpoint,thepointatwhichdatacreatedoutpacedourcapacitytostoredata,issignificantforthedigitalpreservationcommunity.Itisatthispointwhendecisionmakingfordigitalpreservationmustfocusnotonlyonhowtopreservedata,butalsoonwhattopreserve.Thesedecisionsarebasedonanynumberofcriteria,buttheimportantfactortoconsiderfordigitalpreservationanddisasterplanningisthattheinformationselectedforpreservationindigitalrepositorieshasultimatelybeenselectedbecauseofitsvalue.“Whilethecostsofmaintainingdigitalpreservationcapacityarenotinsignificant,thecostsofthealternativeareoftengreater.Re-creatingresearchdatasetscanbeprohibitivelyexpensive;intheextreme,itmaybeimpossibletore-createlostdata”(Beagrie,Chruszcz,&Lavoie,2008,16).Theimportanceanduniquenessofdatasuchasthis,compoundedwiththedifficultyorimpossibilityofrecreatinglostdata,makesastrongcaseforpreservation.Becauseofthisneedtopreservethedatathatisheldindigitalrepositories,disasterplanningisaparticularlyimportantactivity.Thedigitalpreservationcommunityisdevelopinganawarenessandunderstandingoftheconceptofdisasterplanningaspartofadigitalpreservationprogram,butathoroughunderstandingofdisasterplanninginpracticehasnotyetbeenachieved.Thegoalofthisstudyistounderstandifdigitalrepositoriesthathaveapreservationmandateareengagingindisasterplanningactivities,particularlytofurthertheirpursuitoftrusteddigitalrepositorystatus.Incaseswheredigitalrepositoriesareengagingwithdisasterplanning,thestudyalsoexaminestheprocessofcreatingdisasterresponseandrecoveryplans,withafocusonhowtheseactivitiesareintegratedintothemanagementofthedigitalrepositories.
Frank
5
Thisstudyfocusesonthepracticesofdigitalrepositoriesthathaveeithersoughttrustedrepositorystatus,haveundergonesometypeofself-audit,orhaveexpressedacommitmenttopursuingthistypeofcertificationprocessinthefuture.Astheliteratureindicates,disasterplanningisgenerallyunderstoodtobepartoftherequirementsfortrustedrepositorystatus,butthedetailsofsuchplanningactivitiesarenotwelldocumentedorunderstood.
2.LiteratureReview
2.1DigitalPreservationInordertounderstanddisasterplanningfordigitalrepositories,itisimportanttofirstexaminedigitalpreservationandtherelationshipofpreservationtodisasterplanning.Disasterplanningfordigitalrepositorieshasthesameintellectualrootsasdigitalpreservation,“digitalpreservationcanencompassarangeofactivities,fromsimplereplicationandstoragetomorecomplextransformation,dependingontheassessedvalueandrisktothetargetcontent”(Hitchcock,Brody,Hey,&Carr,2007,1).FrancineBermanstatesthatpreservationactionsare,“actionsundertakentoensurethelong-termviabilityandavailabilityoftheauthoritativenatureofdigitalmaterial.Preservationactionsshouldensurethematerialremainsauthentic,reliable,andusablewhileitsintegrityismaintained;suchactionsincludevalidation,assigningpreservationmetadata,assigningrepresentationinformation,andensuringacceptabledatastructuresandfileformats”(Berman,2008,55).Inshort,digitalpreservationconsistsofthoseactionsthatensuretheviabilityandauthenticityofdigitalobjectsovertimeanddisasterplanningisoneofthoseactions.Disasterplanningorpreparednessinatraditionalsense“referstoastateorsituationofthelibrariesinwhichtheyarewellpreparedtopreventseverelibrarydamagefrompotentialdisasters”(Wong&Green,2006,72).Andmorespecifically,adisasterplanisadocumentthatdescribespoliciesandprocedureswhichhavebeencreatedtoprevent,preparefor,respondto,andrecoverfromadisaster(Muir&Shenton,2002).Analogoustoanalogcollections,disasterplanningisanessentialactivityfordigitalrepositories(Patkus&Motylewski,1993).Theconceptsunderlyingdisasterplanningforanalogmaterialscanbeappliedtodigitalrepositoriesinthatthelong-termpreservationofdigitalmaterialsdependsontheabilityofanorganizationtoprevent,preparefor,respondto,andrecoverfromdisasterevents.In2007,theCenterforResearchLibraries,TheDigitalCurationCenter,DigitalPreservationEurope,andNESTORmetandidentifiedalistoftencharacteristicsofdigitalpreservationrepositories(CenterforResearchLibraries[CRL],2007).Thislist“providesastructurethatinformstheprocessesandoutcomes”ofrepositoryauditandcertificationprocessessuchastheTrustedRepositoryAuditandCertification(TRAC),whichwillbediscussedingreaterdetailbelow(McHugh,2008,133).Thecharacteristicsare:
1. Therepositorycommitstocontinuingmaintenanceofdigitalobjectsforidentifiedcommunity/communities.
Frank
6
2. Demonstratesorganizationalfitness(includingfinancial,staffing,andprocesses)tofulfillitscommitment.
3. Acquiresandmaintainsrequisitecontractualandlegalrightsandfulfillsresponsibilities.4. Hasaneffectiveandefficientpolicyframework.5. Acquiresandingestsdigitalobjectsbaseduponstatedcriteriathatcorrespondtoits
commitmentsandcapabilities.6. Maintains/ensurestheintegrity,authenticityandusabilityofdigitalobjectsitholdsover
time.7. Createsandmaintainsrequisitemetadataaboutactionstakenondigitalobjectsduring
preservationaswellasabouttherelevantproduction,accesssupport,andusageprocesscontextsbeforepreservation.
8. Fulfillsrequisitedisseminationrequirements.9. Hasastrategicprogramforpreservationplanningandaction.10. Hastechnicalinfrastructureadequatetocontinuingmaintenanceandsecurityofits
digitalobjects.Thesecriteriarelatebothdirectlyandindirectlytodisasterplanning.Specifically,criteriaregardingmaintenance(1,3,6,and7)assumethattherepositorywillbeabletomaintaindigitalobjectsandtheirmetadataovertime,presumablyinspiteofanydisastersthatmayoccur.Criteriaregardingpreservationandsecurity(9and10)arealsosignificantfordisasterplanninginthatdisasterplanningeffortsaremeanttoensurelongtermpreservationandsecurityofdigitalobjects.Onekeyproblemfacingthefieldofdigitalpreservationisthesheervolumeofdata.Whilethismaynotbeaproblemattheindividualrepositorylevel,aseachrepositoryisabletoacceptfordepositonlythatdatawhichmeettheirspecifiedcriteria,itisaproblemforthecommunityasawhole,“thescaleofdigitalcreationisfaroutpacingthecapacitytostorethedata”(Bermanetal.,2010,9).Thisproblemofscalehasbeenwidelydocumented(e.g.Berman,2008;Hey,2003).Anditisfromthisproblemthatothersarise.Specifically,problemsconcerninghowtoensurethelong-termviabilityofsustainabledigitalrepositorieswhilecontinuingtogrow.Thisproblemalsoleadstodifferentproposalsfordisastermitigationsolutions,twoofwhicharedescribedbelow.
2.1.1LOCKSSSomeapproachestodigitalpreservationhaveimplicitdisasterplanningstrategiesbuiltin.OnesuchapproachtodigitalpreservationistheLOCKSS(LotsofCopiesKeepsStuffSafe)system.LOCKSSismodeledonthesystemusedbylibrariestopreservephysicalcontentthroughduplicationofresourcesacrossmultipledistributedorganizations,“thephrase‘distributeddigitalpreservationfederations’isbeingusedincreasinglytodescribecooperativesofgeographically-dispersedinstitutionswhoarebandingtogethertoformsolutionstothedigitalpreservationproblem”(McDonald&Walters,2010,1).Fordigitalpreservation,“acombinationofmassivereplication,ratelimitation,inherentintrusiondetectionandcostlyoperationscanproduceapeer-to-peersystemwithremarkableabilitytoresistattacksbysomeextraordinarilypowerfuladversariesoverdecades.Itslackofdependenceonlong-termsecretsandstable
Frank
7
identitiesblocksmanyofthepathsbywhichsystemsaretypicallyattacked”(Maniatisetal.,2005,42).Thisparticularsystemofpreservationisreliablebecauseitallowsmultiplerepositoriestoshareresponsibilityfordigitalobjects.WhileeachpartnerinaLOCKSSsystemisindeedresponsibleformaintainingtheircopyoftheitems,theyareabletorestoreanyand/oralloftheitemsintheirrepositoryfromanotherpartnerintheeventofdataloss.Whileitisoftennotdirectlystated,the‘lotsofcopies’partofaLOCKSSsystemis,ineffect,meanttopreservethedatathatmaysufferadisasteratonelocationbyprovidingduplicatesacrossseverallocations.ArticlessuchasthosebyManiatisetal.(2005)highlightthestrengthofaLOCKSSnetworktoresist“attack”and“randomstoragefaults,”bothofwhichcanbeconsidereddisasterevents(30).Inastudypublishedin2007,SchroederandGibson(2007)conductedasurveyof“field-gathereddiskreplacementdatafromanumberoflargeproductionsystems,includinghigh-performancecomputingsitesandinternetservicessites.About100,000disksarecoveredbythisdata,someforanentirelifetimeoffiveyears”(1).Thestudyfoundthat“inthefield,annualdiskreplacementratestypicallyexceed1%,with2-4%commonandupto13%observedonsomesystems,”afailureratethatwassignificantlyhigherthantheauthorsexpected(Schroeder&Gibson,2007,1).ThissuggeststhattherandomstoragefaultsdiscussedbyManiatisetal.areindeedlikelytooccur.However,thesearticlesdonotfocusspecificallyondisasterresponseandrecoveryplanning,rather,implyingthattheduplicationforlong-termpreservationwillallowthesystemtoovercomeanytypeofdisruptionorlossinservice.
2.1.2iRODSAnotherapproachtodigitalpreservationistheIntegratedRuleOrientedDataSystems(iRODS)softwarethathasbeendevelopedbytheDataIntensiveCyberEnvironmentsgroup(DICE).iRODSis“asecondgenerationdatagridsystemthatfacilitatesdatamanagementspanninglargegeographicareasandacrossadministrativedomains”(DataIntensiveCyberEnvironmentsGroup[DICE],2008,1).AsdescribedbyMoore,“theiRODSdatagridisagenericdatamanagementinfrastructurethatcanbetunedtosupportdatapreservation,datapublication,datasharing,ordataanalysisthroughspecificationofappropriatedatamanagementpolicies”(Moore,2008,73).TheiRODSsystemisnotspecificallyapreservationsystem,butitcanbeusedtofacilitateandsupportpreservationbymitigatingagainstrisk.“Whenauserororganizationstoresdatawithassociatedmetadatainadatagrid,theyapplypoliciestoensurethattheresultingcollectionwillmeettheirgoals.Suchpoliciesincludedisasterrecovery(syntacticreplication),[and]persistentpreservationforthelongterm(temporalreplication)”(DICE,2008,2).Inotherwords,iRODSisasystemthatallowsrepositoriestocreateandenforcerulesandpolicies,thereforeensuringconsistencywithintherepository(Rajasekar,2010).Theserulesandpoliciesincludethoserelatingtolong-termpreservation.
2.2DigitalCurationDigitalcurationisavalueproposition.AccordingtoWaltersandSkinner,“digitalcurationreferstotheactionspeopletaketomaintainandaddvaluetodigitalinformationoveritslifecycle,includingtheprocessesusedwhencreatingdigitalcontent”(Walters&Skinner,2011,5).Similarly,MaureenPennockattheDigitalCurationCentredescribesdigitalcurationinthe
Frank
8
followingway,“digitalcuration,broadlyinterpreted,isaboutmaintainingandaddingvaluetoatrustedbodyofdigitalinformationforbothcurrentandfutureuse:inotherwords,itistheactivemanagementandappraisalofdigitalinformationoveritsentirelifecycle”(Pennock,2007,1).InPennock’sview,curationisdifferentfrompreservationinthatpreservationhasamorenarrowfocusonmaintainingcontinuedaccesstodigitalmaterialsoveralongspanoftime.Proponentsofdigitalcurationarguethatdigitalcurationcantakeplacewithcollectionsthatarethesubjectofdigitalpreservationefforts,andthatitcanalsotakeplacewithcollectionsthatarenotmeantforlong-termpreservation.Othersinthefieldofdigitalpreservationdonotnecessarilyagree.Giventhesedifferences,thequestionofwhetherdisasterplanningfallsintothecategoryofdigitalcurationarises.Whiledisasterplanningisnotfeaturedprominentlyinthedigitalcurationliterature,itcouldbearguedthatdisasterplanningisindeedanimportantactivityfordigitalcuration.Whileanitemorcollectionisneeded,therepositorymustbepreparedforanydisasterthatthreatensthevalueoftheinformation.Despitethefactthatdigitalcurationdoesnotrequirelong-termpreservation,theprocessoffulllifecyclemanagementofdigitalresourcesmeansthatthoseresourcesmustbemanagedandpreservedforaslongastheyareneeded.Susceptibilitytodisastersisaproblemnotonlyifitinterruptsaccesstocollectionsbutalsoifitthreatenstheintegrityofthosecollections,whethertheyareneededforoneyearortwenty.
2.3TrustAnotherimportantelementofpreservationanddisasterpreparednessfordigitalrepositoriesexistsattherepositorylevel,andthatistheconceptoftrust.GarrettandWatersmaketheclaimthat,“forassuringthelongevityofinformation,perhapsthemostimportantroleintheoperationofadigitalarchivesismanagingtheidentity,integrityandqualityofthearchivesitselfasatrustedsourceoftheculturalrecord.Usersofarchivedinformationinelectronicformandofarchivalservicesrelatingtothatinformationneedtohaveassurancethatadigitalarchivesiswhatitsaysthatitisandthattheinformationstoredthereissafeforthelongterm”(Garrett&Waters,1996,23).Theimplicationhereisthatifarepositoryisnottrustedbyusers,thenthedatastoredinthatrepositoryisnotpreserved.Usersmustbeabletotrustthatthedatacontainedwithinadigitalrepositoryiswhatitpurportstobe,andoneofthewaysthatusersjudgeintegrityofdigitalobjectsisthroughtrustintherepository.Trustisalsoanimportantcomponentofdisasterplanninginthatonewayinwhichrepositoriesgaintrustisthroughdemonstrationofpreparedness.Repositoriesdemonstratetheirabilitytopreservetheircontentthroughdisastersbymakingdisasterplanningdocumentationavailabletothecommunity,byconductingself-auditsofbestpracticesandmakingtheresultsavailabletothecommunity,orbyundertakingaprocessofauditandcertificationasadministeredbyanexternalorganization.
2.3.1TRACTheconceptoftrusthasemergedasacommunitystandardfordigitalrepositories;specifically,theassignmentofTrustedRepositorystatusthroughcertification.Threeexamplesofwhichare
Frank
9
theDataSealofApproval(http://datasealofapproval.org/)whichoriginatedintheNetherlands,DRAMBORA(http://www.repositoryaudit.eu/)whichwasdevelopedjointlybytheDigitalCurationCentreandDigitalPreservationEurope,andTrustedRepositories:AuditandCertification(TRAC)(http://www.crl.edu/archiving-preservation/digital-archives/metrics-assessing-and-certifying-0)whichisadministeredbytheCenterforResearchLibraries(CRL)intheUnitedStates.TRACcertificationisbasedontheTrustworthyRepositoriesAudit&Certification:CriteriaandChecklist(ISO16363,2012).Eachofthesecertificationsrequirethattherepositoryseekingcertificationundergoanauditprocess,althoughtheprocessofTRACcertificationismorerigorousandtimeconsumingthanDataSealofApprovalcertification,andDRAMBORAwasdesignedtobeaself-auditprocess(e.g.McHugh,2008;Sesink,2010).DisasterplanningisacoreconstructoftheTRACauditandcertificationrequirements.Sections5.1and5.2aremostexplicit:
“5.2.4Therepositoryshallhavesuitablewrittendisasterpreparednessandrecoveryplan(s),includingatleastoneoff-sitebackupofallpreservedinformationtogetherwithanoffsitecopyoftherecoveryplan(s)”(ISO16363,2012,78).
DisasterplanningisanexplicitelementoftheTRACcertificationprocess,andisanimplied(butnotdirectlystated)elementoftheDataSealofApprovalcertificationprocess.WhiletheguidelinesforTRACcertificationdonotprovidedetailedinstructionsorrequirementsfordisasterplanning,thecertificationdoesrequirethattherepositorybeabletodemonstratedisasterpreparedness.Thisdisasterpreparednessisgenerallydemonstratedthroughthecreationofadisasterplanor,moreaccurately,asuiteofdisasterplanningdocuments.Thecheckliststatesthat,“therepositoryshallidentifyandmanagetheriskstoitspreservationoperationandgoalsassociatedwithsysteminfrastructure”(ISO16363,2012,65).OfthethreerepositoriesincludedinthisstudythatareTRACcertified,twocreatedtheirdisasterplanningdocumentationfortheaudit(PorticoandChronopolis),andthethird(HathiTrust)completedtheauditwithoutdisasterplanningdocumentationinplace.HathiTrusthascommittedtocompletingtheirdisasterplanningdocumentationbeforetheirnextaudit.
2.3.2DRAMBORATheDigitalRepositoryAuditMethodBasedonRiskAssessment(DRAMBORA)isanothermethodforassessmentofdigitalrepositories“developedjointlybytheDigitalCurationCentre(DCC)andDigitalPreservationEurope(DPE)”(McHugh,2008,131).DRAMBORAassessment“requiresrepositoriestoexposetheirorganization,policiesandinfrastructurestorigorousscrutinythroughaseriesofhighlystructuredexercises,enablingthemtobuildacomprehensiveregistryoftheirmostpertinentrisks,arrangedintoastructurethatfacilitateseffectivemanagement”(McHugh,2008,131).ThefocusonriskintheDRAMBORAassessmentcanarguablybeseenasanalogoustotheTRACrequirementfordisasterpreparedness.TheDRAMBORAassessment,infact,hasastronger
Frank
10
focusonrisk(disaster)managementandmitigationastheentireassessmentisbasedonarepository’sabilitytomanageandrespondtorisks.Inthisrespect,“DRAMBORArepresentsabottom-upapproachthattakesriskandriskmanagementasitsprinciplemeansfordeterminingdigitalrepositories'successandforchartingtheirimprovement”(Innocenti&Vullo,2009,139).DRAMBORAuseslanguagethatplacesaheavyemphasisonriskmanagement,inserviceofevaluatingthepreservationeffortsofrepositories,“riskisutilisedasaconvenientmeansforcomprehendingrepositorysuccess-thoserepositoriesmostcapableofdemonstratingtheadequacyoftheirriskmanagementarethosethatcanhave,andengender,greaterconfidenceintheadequacyoftheirefforts.Preservationisafterall,atitsveryheart,ariskmanagementprocess.Thefundamentaltemporalchallengesofpreservationarenaturallycomplicatedbyfutureuncertainties”(Innocenti&Vullo,2009,144).WhiletheTRACcertificationprocessdiscusseddisasterpreparednessinonlyonesectionoftheauditdocumentation,“theDRAMBORAprocessfocusesonrisks,andtheirclassificationandevaluationaccordingtoindividualrepositories'activities,assetsandcontextualconstraints”(Innocenti&Vullo,2009,141).Theresultofthisprocessis“adeterminationoftherepository'sabilitytocontainandavoidtherisksthatthreatenitsabilitytoreceive,curateandprovideaccesstoauthenticandcontextually,syntacticallyandsemanticallyunderstandabledigitalinformation”(Innocenti&Vullo,2009,141).UnlikeTRACandDSA,theresultsofDRAMBORAauditsarenotnecessarilymadepublic.Oftherepositoriesincludedinthisstudy,HathiTrusthasacknowledgedthecompletionofaDRAMBORAauditbuttheresultsofthatreportarenotpubliclyavailable.
2.3.3DataSealofApprovalDataSealofApproval(DSA)isanassessmentconsistingofsixteenguidelines,which“recognizethatresponsibilityforarchivalqualitydataissharedamongstthreegroups:producersforthequalityoftheresearchdatathemselves,therepositoryforthequalityofdatastorageandavailability,andconsumersforthequalityofdatause”(Ball,2010,31).Underlyingtheseguidelinesarethefollowingfivecriteria,whichdeterminewhetherdatacanbeconsideredsustainablyarchived(Sesinketal.,2010,1):
1. TheresearchdatacanbefoundontheInternet.2. Theresearchdataareaccessible,whiletakingintoaccountrelevantlegislationwith
regardtopersonalinformationandintellectualpropertyofthedata.3. Theresearchdataareavailableinausableformat.4. Theresearchdataarereliable.5. Theresearchdatacanbereferredto.
Theguidelinesthemselvesareorganizedintothreesections,focusingonthedataproducer,thedatarepository,andthedataconsumer.Guidelinesfourthroughthirteenfocusspecificallyon
Frank
11
thedatarepository,andwhiledisasterplanningandriskmanagementarenotexplicitlydiscussedthefocusondigitalarchiving,long-termpreservation,andlifecyclemanagementarerelevanttotheareaofdisasterplanningandriskmanagement.Oftherepositoriesincludedinthisstudy,ICPSRisDSAcertified.TheresultsofthecertificationauditareavailableviatheDSAwebsite,asareallofICPSR’sdisasterplanningdocumentation.OnekeydifferencebetweenTRAC,DRAMBORA,andDSA,despitethefactthatthegoalofeachassessmentistodeterminethefitnessofarepositorytocareforandcuratecollectionsaswellasprovidelong-termpreservationsolutions,isthatTRACandDSAprovidestrictguidelinesforperforminganauditwhileDRAMBORAprovidesaframeworkthatcanbeadaptedtofittheneedsoftherepository(e.g.Ball,2010;CRL,2007;Patel,2007;Sesink,2010).Despitethesedifferencesinphilosophyanddegreeofformality,TRAC,DRAMBORA,andDSAallspecificallyincluderequirementforrepositoriestohavedisasterplanningandriskmanagementdocumentation(e.g.McHugh,2008;Ross,2006;Sesink,2010).
2.4ThreatstoDigitalCollectionsDisasterplanning,disastermitigation,andriskmanagementactivitiesarisefromrealandimaginedthreatstocollections(e.g.Aikin,2007;Altmanetal.,2009;Anderson,2005;Cervone,2006;Maniatisetal.,2005).Thesethreatscanbedividedintofourbroadcategories:
There aremany threats to archived digital information.Physical threats resultfrom chance, natural events, or age, and include failures inmedia, hardware,storage facilities, and so forth. Technological threats include formatobsolescenceanddestructivesoftwareerrors.Humanthreatsincludecuratorialerror, and insider and outsider attacks. Institutional threats include missionchange,changeoflegalregime,oreconomicfailure.Manyofthesethreatsareamelioratedthroughreplicationofthematerialstobepreserved,combinedwithregularauditing(Altmanetal.,2009,181).
Aswithdisastersfortraditionalanalogcollections,digitaldisasterscanbecausedbyphysical,human,andinstitutionalthreats.Tothislistwecanalsoaddthecategoryoftechnologicalthreat.Whilemanyincidentsthatfallintothiscategorycouldalsofallintooneoftheotherthree,andinfactnearlyeverydisasteratadigitalrepositorywillinvolvesomesortoftechnologyfailure,thistypeofincidentisuniquetodigitalrepositoriesandcaninfacthappenindependentlyoftheotherthreedisastertypes.FrankCervoneidentifiesthreetypesofdisastersfordigitalrepositories:technicalthreats,naturalthreats,andhumanthreats(Cervone,2006,175).ThisissimilartoAltman’scategorization,althoughperhapslessspecific.Digitalrepositoriesfacethreatsasdiscussedabove,butalsothreatsthatarenewanduniquetodigitalresources,“atonetime,fireandwaterwerethetwogreatthreatstoalibrary'scollectionandrecords.Nowtheyhavebeenjoinedbyother,moreinsidious,butjustasdisastrousthreats:computerviruses,hackers,fileformatobsolescence,storagemedia
Frank
12
degradationorobsolescence,platformdependence,catastrophicsystemfailure,naturaldisasters,terroristattacks,andsimpleneglect”(Anderson,2005,9).Preservationfortraditionalphysicalcollectionsgenerallyinvolvesprotectingcollectionsfromactivedangers,butbarringadisastertheobjectsgenerallydonotrequireregularinterventionforongoingmaintenancetomitigateagainst“silentcorruption”(Constantinescuetal.,2008,p.108).Silentcorruptionoccurs“whenincorrectdataisprovidedtotheuser,e.g.,writtentothememoryorI/Osystem,andnoerroristriggered”(Constantinescuetal.,2008,108).Thisisnotthecasewithdigitalobjects.Withoutregularactiveinterventions,digitalobjectswillquicklybecomeobsolete,“adigitalpreservationplanshouldincludescheduledmigrationofmaterialstonewmedia,offsitebackup,adisasterrecoveryplanandscheduledregulartestingofmediaandbackups”(Anderson,2005,10).Thisthreatofobsolescenceisinfactadisasterasitposesamajorthreattotherepository(Anderson,2005).Otherdisastersthatthreatendigitalrepositoriesincludepowergridevents,serviceinterruptions,anddatacorruption(Constantinescuetal.,2008).
2.5PlanningforDisastersDisasterplanningfordigitalrepositoriesisinmanyrespectsmorecomplicatedthandisasterplanningfortraditionalcollections.Withtheadvancementoftechnology,andthemovetowarddigitalresources,includingbothborn-digitalitemsandthedigitizationofphysicalitems,disasterplanninghastakenonnew,technologically-drivenandfocusedaspects.Whilegeneralrecommendationsandinstructionsforhandlingdamagedmaterialswillbesuitableacrossnearlyalltraditionalcollections,thisisnotthecasefordigitalrepositories.Thedisasterplanwillnecessarilyreflectthepoliciesandproceduresoftheorganization,andthesepoliciesandprocedureswillbeareflectionofthepreservationactivitiesinwhichtherepositorychoosestoengage.Forexample,adisasterplanforarepositorythatchoosestoonlybackuptheirdatauponmagnetictapewilllookquitedifferentfromtheplanforanorganizationwithamirrorsiteataremotelocation.Whileeachsolutionismeanttoaddressthesamethreatsdescribedabove,theactionsrequiredtocarryouteachpreservationactivityarequitedifferent,andthewaythatdatawouldberestoredafteradisastereventarealsoverydifferent.Mylessuggeststhefollowingactivitiesthataregenerallyapplicableacrossmanytypesofrepositories,(1)Inventoryallcomputerhardwareandsoftware.Describewhatservicestheysupport;(2)Determinewhatservicesarethemostcriticaltoyourlibrary.Describetheproceduresforcontinuingtheseservicesinadisastersituationandhowthelibrarycanrecoverfromthedisaster;(3)Makesurethatcomputerdataisbackeduponaregularbasis.Mission-criticaldatashouldbecopiedandstoredoff-site;...(5)Reviewthelistofcontingencyprocedurestodeterminewaystoreducethelengthofservicedisruption(Myles,2000,49).Disasterplanningdocumentsfordigitalrepositoriestendtoassumethatdisasters,largeandsmall,willoccurandthattheorganizationwillhavetorecover.Whileacertainamountof
Frank
13
preventioncanbehelpful,“maintenanceisalwayscheaperthanrecoveryorre-creation,soitmakesgoodbusinesssensetoplanforandfundpreservation,”therearesometypesofdisastersthatareoutsideofthecontrolorinfluenceoftherepository(suchaspowerevents)(Anderson,2005,9).Forthesetypesofdisasters,repositoriesmustdowhattheycantomitigatedataloss,“datalossincomplexsystems,whetherthroughnaturaldisasterormorelikelythroughhumanerror,isinevitable.Recoveringfromthesephenomenaisanorganizationalchallengethatwillbecomeanever-increasingdilemmaforresearch,educational,andculturalorganizationsastheirartifactsbecomeborn-digitalinnature”(McDonald&Walters,2010,4).Inanticipationoftheneedtorecoverfromdataloss,repositoriesaremovingtowardthewidespreadadoptionofbestpracticesforpreservation,“currentbestpracticeismovingtowardasystematicapproachtodatareplication,whichincludesmaintainingconsistentuniqueidentifiersforeachresource;explicitmetadatadescribingtheresources,provenance,version,andassociatedrights;andamanagedsetofreplicationservices.Bestpracticeismovingtowardmoresystematicandexplicitreplicationpoliciesthatincludemultiplyreplicatingentirecollectionsoff-site,explicitversioning,andaprocessofregularlyrefreshingandverifyingreplicatedcontent”(Altmanetal.,2009,181-2).ThesebestpracticesalsocontributetothegrantingoftrustedrepositorystatusasdescribedabovewithTRAC,DRAMBORA,andDSAcertifications.Literaturediscussingdisasterplanningfordigitalrepositoriesissparse,andassuchdiscussionisnecessarilylimited.However,thegeneraltrendsdiscussedabove,andtherecognitionbythecommunitythatdisasterplanningisabeneficialandrecommendedactionfordigitalrepositories,ispromisingandsuggeststhatthisisanareathatwillcontinuetoexpand.
2.5.1DisasterResponseandRecoveryLiteraturediscussingdisasterresponseandrecoveryfordigitalcollectionsisalsosparse.Whilethereissomeliteraturediscussingbusinesscontinuityplanningforprivatesectorcompanies,suchasfinancialinstitutions,thisliteraturedoesnotaddresssomeoftheimportantandspecificpeculiaritiesofdigitalrepositories(e.g.Andrew,2008;"BestPracticesinDisasterRecoveryBusinessContinuityPlanning,"2008;Cousins,2007;Nollau,2009;Wheatmanetal.,2001).Forexample,budgetaryconsiderationsarecompletelydifferentforaprivatecompanythananonprofitdigitalrepositorythatislikelypartofaneducationalinstitutionorlibrary.Additionally,thetypeofdataheldineachrepositorymayalsobequitedifferent.RoyTennantargues,“Oncetheemergencyhaspassed,youshouldknowwhatstepsmustbetakentogeteverythingbackupandfunctioning.Specifically,youshouldknowinadvancehowtoinstallnewhardwareandsoftware,retrievedatafromabackupsystem,andgeteverythingbackonline”(Tennant,2001,para.14).Thisadviceistruewhetherdataisbacked-uponmagnetictapesoratamirrorsite,andechoestheneedfordisasterpreparednesstrainingforstaffofdigitalrepositories.Justasstaffattraditionalorganizationsruntabletopexercisestotestoutthedisasterplan,staffatdigitalrepositoriesshoulddothesame.Staffatdigitalrepositoriesshould,infact,gothroughtheentireprocessofrestoringtheirdatafrombackup
Frank
14
sothatanyproblemsintheprocesscanbeaddressedbeforesuchactionisnecessary.Inrespondingtoadisasterwheretheinformationcontentisdamaged,animportantanduniqueconsiderationfordigitalrepositoriesistheissueofmanagingdamagedequipment.Whiledamagedequipmentcertainlyshouldbereplacedifnecessary,itisalsoagoodideatokeepthedamageditemsuntilthesystemhasbeencompletelyrestored,“tapespreviouslythoughtofasunreadablelaterturnedouttohaveusefuldata.Defectiveharddrivestoomayhaverecoverabledata.Donotletanyonedisposeofanyequipmentordatasourcesuntiltheemergencyistrulyandcompletelyover”(Brennan&O'Hara,2002,72).Despitethisapparentlackofliteratureregardingdisasterresponseandrecoveryfordigitalrepositories,literaturerelevanttodisasterplanningcanbefoundinseveralotherareas.Riskmanagementandbusinesscontinuity(orcontinuityofservice)planningaretwosuchareas,andbothwillbediscussedingreaterdetailbelow.
2.5.2RiskManagementRiskmanagementisatermthatisfoundinboththeliteratureandincommondiscussionofdisasterplanningfordigitalrepositories.Ithasbeenarguedthat,“protectingdigitalobjectsagainstthreatsisequivalenttoreducingtheriskofthosethreats,whichisthemaingoalofthebroadareaofRiskManagement”(Barateiro,2010,5).Thecertificationandassessmentprogramsdiscussedabove,TRAC,DRAMBORA,andDSAarebasedontheconceptofriskmanagementfordigitalrepositories.Ineachcase,thetrustworthinessofadigitalrepositoryisevaluatedbasedonthatrepository’sabilitytomanageriskand/ormitigatetheeffectsofdisastereventsontherepository.Thephrase‘riskmanagement’isusedinsomecasestodescribedisasterplanningactivities,andariskmanagementapproachcanbeusedtoinformdisasterresponseandrecoveryplanningactivities.Itisalsotrue,however,thatriskmanagementliteraturedoesnotplaceastrongemphasisondisasterplanningoverdigitalpreservationingeneral.Rather,riskmanagementliteraturetendstotakeamorebroadviewofriskmanagementintermsofdigitalrepositoriesand,asmentionedabove,discussriskmanagementinrelationtolongtermdigitalpreservationactivitiesandstrategiesratherthandisasterplanning.
2.5.3BusinessContinuityPlanningAsmentionedabove,andsimilartoriskmanagement,someoftheliteratureregardingbusinesscontinuityplanning(BCP)canalsobeusedfordisasterresponseandrecoveryplanningfordigitalrepositories,“BCPisconcernedwiththerecoveryandresumptionofactivitiesacrosstheentireorganization”(Cervone,2006,174).Aswithnearlyalloftheliteratureidentifiedintheareaofdigitaldisasterplanninganddigitaldisasterresponseandrecovery,thearticlebyFrankCervoneprovidessolidandclearadvicebutdoesnotprovidediscussionoranalysisofthedisasterplanningeffortsofanyparticularorganization.Whileacademicarticlesprovideinterestinganecdotalcases,andbusinessmaterials(suchasthosepreparedbyGartnerresearch)providesoundadvice,noneprovideanalysisofcurrentpractices(e.g.Battersby,2005;Fletcher,2006;Heiser,2011;McKnight,2006;Wheatman,2001;Wheatman&Witty,2001).
Frank
15
3MethodologyThegoalofthisstudyistounderstandwhetherdigitalrepositoriesthathaveapreservationmandateareengagingindisasterplanningactivities,particularlyinrelationtotheirpursuitoftrusteddigitalrepositorystatus.Incaseswheredigitalrepositoriesareengagingwithdisasterplanning,thestudyalsoexaminestheprocessofcreatingdisasterresponseandrecoveryplans,withafocusonhowtheseactivitiesareintegratedintothemanagementofthedigitalrepositories.Toanswerthesequestions,themethodologyofthisstudyinvolvesamixedmethodsapproachconsistingofdocumentanalysisandsemi-structuredinterviewstoexaminethedisasterresponseandrecoveryplanningpracticesofdigitalrepositories.ThisstudywasreviewedbytheInstitutionalReviewBoardattheUniversityofMichiganandwasgranted“NotRegulated”status.
3.1SelectionofSitesThesamplepopulationforthisstudyconsistsofdigitalrepositoriesthathaveeithersoughttrustedrepositorystatus,haveconductedaTRAC,DRAMBORA,orDSAself-audit(andmadetheresultsofthisauditpubliclyavailable),orhaveexpressedacommitmenttopursuingthistypeofcertificationprocessinthefuture.Forthepurposesofthisstudy,trustedrepositorycertificationreferstotheTrustworthyRepositoriesAudit&Certification(TRAC)asadministeredbyCRL,orDataSealofApproval(DSA)certificationastheresultsofthecertificationauditsforTRACandDSAarepubliclyavailable,andtheoutcomeofasuccessfulauditisanofficialcertification.TheinitiallistofrepositorieswascreatedinMayof2011,basedoninformationavailableviatheirownwebsites,theCenterforResearchLibrarieswebsite,and/ortheDataSealofApprovalwebsiteatthattime.Asaresultoftheanalysisofpotentialsites,aninitiallistof19organizationswascompiled.Intheendeightwereselectedforinclusioninthefinalstudybasedontheiravailabilityatthetimeofthestudyandthewillingnessofindividualsatthoseorganizationstoparticipateintheinterviewportionofthisstudy.Thisinitiallistof19repositorieswasnarrowedtothefinalgroupofeightbasedontheavailabilityofrespondentstoparticipateintheone-hourinterviewportionofthestudy.AllwhowereabletocompleteaninterviewbytheendofJanuary2012wereincludedinthestudy.ThelistoforganizationsconsideredforthestudyappearsasTable1,organizationsthatwereincludedinthefinalgroupofeightareidentifiedwithitalics:
Frank
16
Table1:InitialListofRepositories
Repository URL1 ArchaeologyDataService http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/2 ArchivesNewZealand http://archives.govt.nz/3 Chronopolis(TheUniversityofCaliforniaat
SanDiego)https://chronopolis.sdsc.edu/
4 DSpace(attheMassachusettsInstituteofTechnology)
http://dspace.mit.edu/
5 ECommons(Cornell) http://ecommons.cornell.edu/6 HathiTrust http://www.hathitrust.org/7 TheInter-UniversityConsortiumforPolitical
andSocialResearchhttp://www.icpsr.umich.edu/
8 LibraryandArchivesCanada http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/9 TheLibraryofCongress http://www.loc.gov/index.html10 MATRIX(MichiganStateUniversity) http://www2.matrix.msu.edu/11 TheNationalArchivesandRecords
Administrationhttp://www.archives.gov/
12 TheNationalArchivesofAustralia http://www.naa.gov.au/13 NationalLibraryofAustralia http://www.nla.gov.au/14 Portico http://www.portico.org/digital-
preservation/15 StatisticsNewZealand http://www.stats.govt.nz/16 TheCaliforniaDigitalLibrary http://www.cdlib.org/17 TheInternetArchive http://archive.org/index.php18 TheMetaArchiveCooperative http://www.metaarchive.org/19 TheUKDataArchive http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/
3.2DiscussionofEightSites
3.2.1ChronopolisChronopolisisageographicallydistributedpreservationnetworkthatusesiRODSto“federatethepartnersitesandtoreplicatedataamongthem”(SanDiegoSupercomputerCenter[SDSC],2011b,para.3).“OriginallyfundedbytheLibraryofCongress,theChronopolisdigitalpreservationnetworkhasthecapacitytopreservehundredsofterabytesofdigitaldata—dataofanytypeorsize,withminimalrequirementsonthedataprovider.Chronopoliscomprisesseveralpartnerorganizationsthatprovideawiderangeofservices”(SDSC,2011a,para.1).ThepartnerorganizationsthatcompriseChronopolisare:SanDiegoSupercomputerCenter(SDSC),UCSanDiegoLibraries,NationalCenterforAtmosphericResearch(NCAR),andtheUniversityofMarylandInstituteforAdvancedComputerStudies(UMIAC).“AsofJuly,2009,Chronopolishousesfourdiversecollections:abackupofthecompletedigitalholdingsoftheInter-universityConsortiumforPoliticalandSocialResearch(ICPSR,basedattheUniversityofMichigan,‘Web-at-Risk’collectionsfromtheCaliforniaDigitalLibrary(CDL),geospatialdataresourcesfromthe
Frank
17
NorthCarolinaGeospatialDataArchivingProject,andseveraldecadesofdatafromresearchcruisesfromtheScrippsInstitutionofOceanography(SIO)atUCSanDiego”(Minor,2010,121).Chronopolisfocusesonprovidinglong-termpreservationofdigitalresources.“FormatobsolescenceisnotanimmediateconcernoftheChronopolissystem.Instead,thisisregardedastheresponsibilityofthedataproviders.Thesingle,overridingcommitmentoftheChronopolissystemistopreserveobjectsinsuchawaythattheycanbetransmittedbacktotheoriginaldataprovidersintheexactforminwhichtheyweresubmitted”(SDSC,2011c,para.3).UserswillbeabletoretrievefromChronopolisexactlywhattheydepositedwithnochangestoformatorcontent.ChronopolisreceivedTRACcertificationin2012,withafinalscoreofelevenoutofapossiblefifteenpoints(CRL,2012a,4).
3.2.2HathiTrust“HathiTrustisapartnershipofmajorresearchinstitutionsandlibrariesworkingtoensurethattheculturalrecordispreservedandaccessiblelongintothefuture.TherearemorethansixtypartnersinHathiTrust,andmembershipisopentoinstitutionsworldwide”(HathiTrust,2012a,para.1).ThefoundingmembersofHathiTrustincludethe12-univeristyconsortiumknownastheCommitteeonInstitutionalCooperation(CIC,#63)andtheelevenuniversitylibrariesoftheUniversityofCalifornia(UC)system(Rombouts&Princic,2010).HathiTrustisbasedattheUniversityofMichigan’sAnnArborcampus,andispartoftheUniversityLibrary,withamirrorsitelocatedinIndianapolis,Indiana.Therepositoryfocusesbothonpreservationofandaccesstodata.“HathiTrustDigitalLibraryisadigitalpreservationrepositoryandhighlyfunctionalaccessplatform.Itprovideslong-termpreservationandaccessservicesforpublicdomainandincopyrightcontentfromavarietyofsources,includingGoogle,theInternetArchive,Microsoft,andin-housepartnerinstitutioninitiatives”(HathiTrust,2012c,para.1).ThecontentofHathiTrustisprimarilycomprisedofdigitizedmonographsandserialsfromtheparticipatingmemberinstitutions.HathiTrusthascompletedbothTRACandDRAMBORAaudits.TherepositoryreceivedTRACcertificationin2011,withafinalscoreofnineoutofapossiblefifteenpoints(CRL,2011,2).TheresultsofHathiTrust’s2008DRAMBORAauditarenotpubliclyavailable.
3.2.3Inter-UniversityConsortiumforPoliticalandSocialResearch(ICPSR)ICPSRis“aninternationalconsortiumofabout700academicinstitutionsandresearchorganizations”(ICPSR,2011a,para.1).Therepository,whichwasfoundedin1962,“providesleadershipandtrainingindataaccess,curation,andmethodsofanalysisforthesocialscienceresearchcommunity”(ICPSR,2011a,para.1).LikeHathiTrust,ICPSRislocatedattheUniversityofMichiganinAnnArbor.ICPSR,however,ispartoftheInstituteforSocialResearchratherthantheuniversitylibrary.Pertheorganization’stimeline,ICPSR’sfirstmainframecomputerwaspurchasedin1967,thefirst
Frank
18
DigitalPreservationOfficerwashiredin2006,databackupsweremovedtospinningdiskin2008,andwarmbackupserversweredeployedinremotelocationsin2009(ICPSR,2011b).Asanorganization,ICPSRhasastrongreputationforbeingaleaderinthefieldofdigitalpreservationanddisasterplanning.Inadditiontomaintainingasetofpublicly-availabledocumentsregardingdigitalpreservationanddisasterplanning,ICPSRalsoadministerstrainingworkshopsinthisarea.ICPSRparticipatedinatestauditforTRAC,administeredbyCRL,in2006.TheresultsofthisauditarepubliclyavailableviatheCRLwebsite(CRL,2012b).ICPSRreceivedDataSealofApprovalcertificationin2010,theresultsofwhichareavailableviatheDSAwebsite(DataSealofApproval[DSA],2012;DataSealofApprovalBoard,2011).
3.2.4MATRIXMATRIX:TheCenterforHumane,Arts,LettersandSocialSciencesOnlineatMichiganStateUniversityisadigitalrepositorylocatedatMichiganStateUniversity(MSU)inLansing,Michigan.TherepositorywasfoundedaspartofH-Netin1994andtoday,“housesmajordigitallibraryrepositoriesincludingtotheAfricanOnlineDigitalLibrary(AODL),DetroitPublicTelevision’sAmericanBlackJournalvideoarchives,HistoricalVoices,andTheQuiltIndex.MATRIXalsohoststheinternationalscholarlynetworkingcommunity,H-Net”(MATRIX,2012,para.2).MATRIXisfundedbyavarietyofsources,includingMSUandvariousnationalgrantsandcontinuestomaintainafocusonthehumanities,arts,socialsciences,andeducation.Pertheorganization’swebsite,MATRIXwas,atthetimeofrepositoryselection,workingonwritingseveraldigitalpreservationpolicydocuments,includingadigitalpreservationpolicyframework,adigitalpreservationplan,andadisasterplanningfordigitalassetsdocument.AsofMarch2012thewebsitecontinuestoreflectthisintent.
3.2.5NationalLibraryofAustraliaTheNationalLibraryofAustralia“definesdigitalpreservationastheprocessesinvolvedinmaintainingtherequiredlevelofaccessibilityofdigitalobjectsovertime”(NationalLibraryofAustralia[NLA],2012a,para.2).AlargepartofthedigitalpreservationeffortattheNationalLibraryofAustraliaisPANDORA,Australia’swebarchive.TheNationalLibraryofAustralia’sdigitalpreservationwebsiteincludesadiscussionofcriticalelementssuchascontingencyplanningandemergencyresponsepreparedness(NLA,2012a).Aversionofthelibrary’sdigitalpreservationpolicyisavailableonlineaswell,includingastatementthatthelibrary“storesandmanagesourdigitalcollectionsinwaysthatwillensuretheirintegrity,includingadequateandsecurebackupanddisasterrecoverysafeguards”(NLA,2012b,sec.6).Inapolicystatementcoveringtheperiodof2008to2012,thelibrary’sdigitalpreservationpolicystatesthatby2012thegoalistobe“wellplacedtopreventorrespondtothreatstothedigitalcollections”(NLA,2012c,sec.2.1).
3.2.6Portico“Porticoisamongthelargestcommunity-supporteddigitalarchivesintheworld”(Portico,2012a,para.1).Therepositoryworkswithacademicinstitutions,nonprofitorganizations,and
Frank
19
for-profitorganizationssuchaspublishers.AsofMarch2012theorganizationhas739participatinglibrariesand142participatingpublishersPorticoisaserviceofthenonprofitorganizationITHAKA.WhilePorticodoesnotprovideanyspecificdisasterplanningdocumentationthroughitswebsite,thereareseveraldocumentsavailablethroughthePreservationPoliciessectionthatcouldbeconsideredelementsofadisasterplansuchas,asuccessionplan,replicationandbackuppolicy,andescalationpathforproblemresolution.Overall,Porticoappearstobequitecustomer-andprofit-focusedincomparisontomanyoftheotherorganizationsinthestudy.Therepositoryisnotapartofanyparticularacademicinstitutionornationallibrary,andthewebsiteprovidesinformationsuchas“HowPorticoSavesYouTimeandMoney”(Portico,2012b).TherepositoryreceivedTRACcertificationin2011,withafinalscoreofelevenoutofapossiblefifteenpoints(CRL,2010,2).
3.2.7TheInternetArchiveFoundedbyBrewsterKahle,theInternetArchiveisanonprofitorganizationthatwasfoundedwiththemissionofarchivingandpreservingtheinternet.Thecollectionincludeswebpages,text,audio,video,andsoftware,althoughtheorganizationisperhapsbestknownbythegeneralpublicfortheWaybackMachine.TheInternetArchiveisbasedinSanFrancisco,Californiawithabackupsitethatislocatedatan‘undisclosedlocation’thatisalsoonthewestcoast(InternetArchive,2012).WhiletheArchiveisnotaffiliatedwithanyparticularacademicinstitution,itappearstobelessreliantonbusinessfromcustomerormemberorganizationsthantheothernon-academicrepositoriesincludedinthisstudy.ThisislikelyaresultofthecontinuedleadershipandsupportofBrewsterKahleasthefounderoftheorganization(InternetArchive,2012).In2006,theInternetArchive’sArchive-Itprogramunderwentapilotassessment,whichwasadministeredbyCRL.TheresultoftheauditcanbefoundviatheCRLwebsite(CRL,2012b).
3.2.8TheMetaArchiveCooperativeTheMetaArchiveCooperativewasfoundedin2006asamembershipofsixacademiclibraries.TheLOCKSSnetworkhassinceexpandedtoinclude“libraries,archives,andotherdigitalmemoryorganizations”(EducopiaInstitute,2012,para.1).TheCooperativepromotesaphilosophyofencouraginginstitutionstopreservetheirowndataratherthanoutsourcingpreservationservicestoexternalvendors.ThisisaccomplishedbyhavingeachinstitutionintheCooperativemaintainaserverthatisconnectedtothenetwork(EducopiaInstitute,2012).Thegeographicallydispersedlocationsofthememberinstitutionshelptomakethepreservationmoresecure.
Frank
20
DocumentationavailableviatheMetaArchiveCooperativewebsiteareportoftheresultsfromaTRACassessmentthatwascarriedoutbyanindependentconsultant.Noscoreisavailableasthiswasnotanofficialaudit(Schultz,2010).
3.3DocumentAnalysisDocumentsforanalysiswerecollectedintwoways:Internetsearchingandaskingparticipantsduringtheirinterviews.TheInternet,andspecificallythewebsitesoftherepositoriesandtheirparentorganizations,wassearchedforreadilyavailabledocumentationregardingdisasterplanninganddigitalpreservation.Atsomeorganizations,suchasICPSR,thisinformationwaseasytofindandtointerpret.Atothers,suchasPortico,itwasmuchmoredifficult.Similarly,someintervieweeswerehappytosharedocumentsandinformationandotherswerereluctant,unwilling,orunabletodoso.Giventhedesireforopennessandtransparencyamongorganizationswhopurportthemselvestobetrustedrepositories,andorganizationsthathaveundergoneTRACcertificationandreview,itwassurprisingthatdisasterplanningdocumentationwassodifficulttofind,andinmanycasesnotavailableatall.Documentsselectedforanalysisincludeanyandalldocumentsthathavebeenidentifiedbyaparticularrepositoryasbeingrelevantfortheirdisasterresponseandrecoveryplanningefforts.Thisincludesdisasterresponseandrecoveryplans,contingencyplanningdocuments,businesscontinuityplanningdocuments,successionplanningdocuments,preservationplanningdocuments,andTRACandDSAauditreports,aswellasdocumentsforinternaluseonlysuchastrainingdocumentsandmemos.Theavailabilityofthisdocumentation,andthetypesofdocumentationselectedforconsiderationforthispurposesofthisstudy,helptoprovideinsighttohoworganizationsareengagingindisasterplanning.Theavailabilityofthisdocumentationalsohelpstoshowwhatinformationrepositoriesmakeavailableinrelationtotheirpursuitordemonstrationoftrustedrepositorystatus.Whichistosaythatsomerepositoriesseemtofeelthatmakingdisasterplanninginformationpubliclyavailablehelpstocultivatetrustfromthecommunityandothersseemtoplacelessimportanceonmakingthisinformationavailable.AcompletelistingofthedocumentsincludedappearsasTable2below:Table2:AvailableDisasterPlanningDocumentation
Repository DocumentsChronopolis TRACCertificationReport
DigitalPreservationProgramWebpage
HathiTrust TRACCertificationReport
“HathiTrustisaSolution”Report
Frank
21
“BuildingAFutureByPreservingOurPast:ThePreservationInfrastructureofHathiTrustDigitalLibrary”
InternalPlanningDocuments,BusinessImpactAnalysis
ICPSR DisasterPlan–Records/Finance
DisasterPlan–RecordsHR(June2007)
DisasterPlan–MemberServices
DisasterPlanningResources(2008)
DisasterPlanningICPSRUpdate(2007)
CrisisCommunicationsPlan
DisasterPlanningPolicyFramework:ModelDocument
DisasterPlanningRolesandResponsibilities:ModelDocument
Version2.0DisasterPlanningTraining:ModelDocument
DisasterPlanningShort-TermActionPlan
DisasterPlanning:CrisisCommunicationsPlan
DisasterPlanning:WebServicesContinuityPlan
DataSealofApprovalAssessmentReport
CRLTRACAuditReport
MATRIX InformationSecurityforDigitalAssetsatMATRIX
NationalLibraryofAustralia BuildingTrust:PilotPreservationAuditofNationalLibraryofAustraliaDigitalRepository
NationalLibraryofAustraliaRequestforTender:DigitalLibraryInfrastructureReplacement(RFT11103)
NationalLibraryofAustraliaCollectionDisasterPlan
NationalLibraryofAustralia,DigitalPreservationPolicy,3rdEdition
Portico CRLReportonPorticoAuditFindings
PorticoTRACSelf-Report
TheInternetArchive StorageandPreservationwebpage
PetaboxStorageSystemInformationwebpage
CRLArchive-ItReport
TheMetaArchiveCooperative MetaArchiveCooperativeCharter
Frank
22
MetaArchiveTechnicalSpecifications
MetaArchiveTRACAuditChecklist(self-audit)
3.4InterviewsInterviewsubjectswereidentifiedateachoftheinitial20organizationsandwereselectedforinclusioninthisstudybasedoninformationavailableontherepositories’websitesindicatingthattheyareresponsiblefor,orinvolvedin,disasterresponseandrecoveryplanningactivitiesordigitalpreservationactivities.Insomecasesmultipleindividualswereidentifiedforasingleorganization.InterviewswereconductedwithtenindividualsfromeightdifferentorganizationsbetweenOctober2011andJanuaryof2012.AlistingofparticipantsinterviewedisincludedinTable3below:Table3:ParticipantsInterviewed
Code Repository Title/Role FunctionSubjectA Chronopolis DigitalPreservation
Librarian/ProjectManager
DigitalPreservation
SubjectB Chronopolis ProjectManager DigitalPreservationSubjectC HathiTrust AssistantLibrarian ITSubjectD HathiTrust DigitalPreservation
LibrarianDigitalPreservation
SubjectE ICPSR DigitalPreservationOfficer
DigitalPreservation
SubjectF MATRIX ChiefTechnologyOfficer ITSubjectG NationalLibraryof
AustraliaManagerofDigitalPreservation
DigitalPreservation
SubjectH Portico ArchiveServiceProductManager
Administration
SubjectI TheInternetArchive Director,ArchivingServices
Administration
SubjectJ TheMetaArchiveCooperative
MetaArchiveProgramDirector
Administration
Ofthoseinterviewedforthestudy,threeholdadministrativeroles,fiveholddigitalpreservationroles,andtwoholdpositionsininformationtechnology(IT).Astheanalysiswillshow,theserolesaresignificantinthatthesubjectsholdvaryingamountsofresponsibilityandauthoritywithintheirorganizations.Eachalsoplaysadifferentroleindisasterplanningactivitieswithinhisorherrespectiveorganization.Onelimitationofthisparticularsubjectgroupisthatonlyintwocasesweremultiplepeopleatonerepositoryinterviewed.Specifically,ChronopolisandHathiTrust.Astudythatinterviewedmultiplepeoplefromdifferent
Frank
23
departmentsandfunctionswithineachorganizationmightbeabletoprovideamorecompleteviewofdisasterplanningatthoseorganizations.Forexample,individualsinITwereabletospeakaboutthetechnicalsideofpreservationandadministratorswereabletospeakaboutpolicy,butneitherwaswell-versedinboth.Subjectswerecontactedviaemail,withasecondfollow-upmessagesenttothosewhodidnotrespondtothefirstemail.Atotalof21responseswerereceived.Eightrespondersprovidedareferraltoanotherindividualwithintheorganization,thirteenagreedtoparticipate,andonedeclinedtobeinterviewedbutofferedtoanswerquestionsviaemail.Ofthetwelvewhoagreedtoparticipate,onewasunabletoscheduleaninterviewinthetimeframeallotted,anotherwaswillingtobeinterviewedbutdeclinedtoberecordedortoshareanydocuments,andthethirdhadmovedintoanewpositionaswasnolongerinvolvedindisasterplanning.Thisproducedalistoftenfinalistswhowereselectedtoparticipateintheinterviewphaseofthestudy.Interviewswerescheduledwiththosewhorespondedexpressinginterest.Participantsweresentconsentformstoreviewandsignpriortotheinterview(seeAppendixA).Interviewslastedapproximatelyonehoureachandwereconductedviatelephoneorinperson,dependingonthelocationandavailabilityofthesubject.Allinterviewswererecordedusingtwoseparatedevicesinordertoensureareliablecaptureoftheevent.Post-interviewnotesweretakenaswell.Theinterviewsfollowedasemi-structuredlistofquestions,whichallowedeachparticipanttodiscusstheirownpoliciesandpractices,elaboratingwhenappropriate.Asemi-structuredinterviewallowstheinterviewertofollowapredeterminedlistofquestions,butallowsformodificationtothewordingand/ororderofthosequestions.Theintervieweralsohastheabilitytofurtherprobeparticularareasinordertoelaborateorclarifythesubject’sresponse(e.g.Babbie,2010;Robson,1993;Wildemuth,2009).Questionsaskedcoveredtheareasof:organizationalattitudestowarddisasterresponseandrecoveryplanning,developmentofdisasterplanningdocumentation,accesstodisasterplanningdocumentation,useandmaintenanceofdisasterplanningdocumentation,andbudgetaryconsiderations.Questionswerebasedonareviewoftheliteratureandapreliminaryreviewofthewebsitesandavailabledocumentationateachofthe20initialorganizations.Thesequestionsfallintothreeareas:creation/development,access,anduseofdisasterplanningdocumentation.Foracompletelistingofquestions,pleaseseeAppendixB.
3.5InterviewAnalysisOncecompleted,theinterviewsweretranscribedandcodedusingNVivo.Thesystemforcoding(or‘nodes’)wasdevelopedbasedonareviewoftheliterature,apreliminaryreviewofthewebsitesandavailabledocumentation,andinitialimpressionsfromtheinterviewsthemselves(e.g.Holsti,1969;Wildemuth,2009).Nodesfallintogeneralcategoriesofcommunication,documentation,administration,andpreservationandaredescribedingreaterdetailinTable4below.
Frank
24
Table4:DescriptionofDocumentCodingScheme
Node DescriptionAccess Accesstothedisasterplanningdocumentationforbothmembers
oftheorganizationandthegeneralpublic.Backup Anymentionofdatabackupusedfordigitalpreservationor
disasterplanning.BackupSites Usedonlywhenaparticipantdiscussedbackupviareplicationof
dataatmorethanonelocation.BackupTape Usedonlywhenaparticipantdiscussedbackuptapes(usually
storedataseparatelocation).LOCKSS UsedonlywhenanorganizationisamemberofaLOCKSS
system/network.BarriersorDifficulties Barriersordifficultiestodisasterplanningactivities.Usually
barrierstocreationorimplementationofdisasterplanningdocumentation.
Budget Discussionofhowdisasterplanningactivitiesarefinanced,howtheyfitintothebudget.Alsoincludesdiscussionofhowdisasterresponsefitsinthebudget.
Certifications DiscussionofauditandcertificationprocessesfortrustedrepositoriessuchasTRACorDataSealofApproval.
Collaboration Collaborationwithexternalorganizationsinordertofurtherdisasterplanningefforts.
Data Discussionoftheactualdataheldwithintherepository.DataLoss Discussionofspecificeventsinvolvingdataloss,orofconditions
underwhichdatalossoccurs.DataRecovery Discussionofspecificeventsinvolvingdatarecovery,orof
conditionsunderwhichdatamayberecovered.DisasterEvents Discussionofspecificdisasterevents,realorpotential.DisasterPlanDocumentation
Discussionofcreation,development,andimplementationofdisasterplanningdocumentation.
InternalCommunication Communicationwithintheorganizationwithregardtodisasterplanning,responseandrecoveryactivities.
Preservation Discussionofdigitalpreservation,notnecessarilywithaspecificfocusondisasterplanning.
Whilethiscodingschemewaslargelysuccessfulinhighlightingthetopicsofdisasterplanningandauditandcertificationprocessesfortrusteddigitalrepositories,thismethodofdocumentcodingandanalysisdoeshavesomelimitations.Forexample,havingonlyoneresearchercodinglikelymakestheresultsmoresubjectivethantheywouldbeifmultipleresearcherswereindependentlycodingandcomparingresults.Inaddition,havingthesameresearcherwhoconductedtheinterviewsalsocarryoutthecodingintroducesanotherlayerofpotentialbias.
Frank
25
4.FindingsThecombinationofcodedinterviewdataanddocumentanalysisyieldfindingsinsixareas:
1. IncentiveforCreation2. Documentation3. ProcessofCreation4. Obstacles5. TestingthePlans6. AccesstoDisasterPlanDocumentation
Thesecategorieshavebeeninfluencedbythestructureoftheinterviews,informedbypatternsofanalysisfromNVivo,andareorganizedinanorderroughlyreflectingthechronologicalprocessofdisasterplancreationandimplementation.
4.1IncentiveforCreationManyofthesubjectsexpressedtheideathatthedevelopmentofdisasterplanningpoliciesandprocedureshappenedasaresultofgrowthanddevelopmentoftherepository.However,eventhosewhoinsistedthattheirrepositoryhaddisasterplanningpoliciesandproceduresinplacebeforegoingthroughanauditcertificationprocessindicatedthatitwasonlythroughtheprocessofrespondingtotheneedsoftheauditorsthattheyactuallycreatedtheirformaldisasterresponseandrecoveryplanningdocuments.SubjectBfromChronopolisstated,“everybodykindofknew,butyouhadtobepartoftheChronopolisteamtoknowwhatthedisasterplanwas.NowduringtheTRACaudit...Chronopolisitselfhashadtomakethatmorepublic.”SubjectAfromChronopolisechoedthisstatement,“it[theTRACaudit]reallydidpushustocreatealotofdocumentationandtobeveryexplicitaboutthingsthatwehadjustkindofassumedbeforeorthatwehadn’tputintoplaceorhadlanguagefor.”AndinadditiontobothacknowledgingthattheTRACauditprovidedtheincentivetoformalizeinformationthathadbeeninformallyortacitlyunderstoodwithintheorganization,theyeachalsostatedmoreexplicitlythat“themainreasonthatwewrotespecificdocumentswasaspartofanauditprocesswhichbeganaboutthemiddleoflastyear”andthat“weonlydocumentedallofthisbecauseofTRAC.”TheMetaArchiveCooperativeisanorganizationthathasgonethroughaninternalTRACaudit.MuchthesameasSubjectsAandBfromChronopolis,SubjectJstatedthatdisasterplanningpoliciesandprocedureshadbeeninplacepriortotheaudit,“Iwouldsayinsomewaysthedisasterplanningactionhasbeeninplacesince2004,sincewefirstbroughtupthenetwork.”Healsostatedthat,“thereisasecondsetofdocumentationthatwepreparedinresponsetoaTRACauditthatwedidin2008,”addingthat,“it's[TRAC]verygoodatcrystallizingandcondensingdownwhatthingsyoushouldbedocumentinganditgivesyouagoodbaseinmyexperiencefordefiningandmakingsurethatyourpracticesareassophisticatedastheyneedtobeinordertoguaranteethatyou'redoingdigitalpreservation...thedisasterrecoverypieceisaperfectexamplebecausethatdocumentandthesuccessionplanningdocumentthosehavecomeoutofthatTRACexperience,notbecausewehadn'talreadythoughtthroughthosethings
Frank
26
andhadthemdocumentedinotherways,wedidnothaveonedocumentthatsaid'thisfocusescompletelyonthattopic'andthat,theimportanceofthat,washighlightedintheTRACdocumentandIthinkrightfullyso.Ithelpedtomotivateus.”Againinthiscase,itwastheauditprocessthatprovidedtheincentivetocreatethedocumentsthatarecurrentlyconsideredtobetheorganization’sdisasterplanningdocumentation.SubjectHfromPorticostatedthat,“growingsizewasthebigimpetus...Idon'tthinkthattherewasasituationthatcausedustothink‘ohmygoodnessweneedasetofplans.’Itwasmore,‘wowwe'regettingreallybigandifweeverhavetorecoverwewantwrittendownthestepswe'regoingtodo,’soitwasjustenvironmentmorethananythingelse...Astheorganizationgrows,andthecontentgrows,thesethingsbecomemoreurgentinpartfortheverypracticalreasonthattherealityisthatifadisasterweretooccurastheorganizationhasgrownandgottenbigger,thetraumaofrecoveringgetsbiggerandsotheverypracticalneedstohaveaplaninhandbecomemoreurgent.”Evenmorethanthepreviouslymentionedrepositories,thisinterviewemphasizedthefactthatthedisasterresponseandrecoveryplanningpoliciesandprocedureswerecreatedoutofarecognizedneedtosupportthegrowthoftherepository.However,eveninthiscase,theintervieweewentontoexplainthat,“ourfinalpoliciesweredraftedinsuchawaytotryandanswerspecificquestionsinTRAC...wedidn’treallywriteanythingspecificallytomeetTRACsneeds,but...whenwesatdowntowritepoliciesitwasreallyjustwritingpoliciesthatmatchedthedecisionsweweremaking...forthepurposesofCRLandtheirTRAC-typeaudit,wespentquiteabitofeffortframingthepoliciesandallofourotherdocumentationinsuchawayastohelpitanswerTRACquestions...itwasanordeal,itwasnoteasy.”Thestaffofthisrepository,likeChronopolisandTheMetaArchiveCooperative,ultimatelycreateddisasterplanningdocumentationbasedonwhatwasneededfortheiraudit.WhiletheintervieweesfromHathiTrustacknowledgedduringtheinterviewthattherepositorydoesnothaveformalizeddisasterresponseandrecoverydocumentationinplaceyet,SubjectDstatedthat,“alotofwhereweareintheplanningisdocumentingwhatwe'realreadydoing,creatingformalpoliciesthatdescribewhatwe'redoing,andthiswasalargepartofourTRACcertificationalso.”Inthiscase,theirpositionseemsalsotobethatthepoliciesandproceduresexistandtheprocessofdocumentingthesepoliciesandproceduresissomethingthatisbeingundertakenspecificallyasaresultoftheaudit.Oftheintervieweesfromorganizationsthathaveundergoneanauditforcertification,SubjectEfromICPSRistheonlyonethatdidnotreportthedevelopmentofspecificdisasterplanningdocumentationfortheaudit.Muchliketheothers,SubjectEdevelopeddisasterresponseandrecoverypoliciesandproceduresasaresultoforganizationalgrowthanddevelopment,“Ithinkitwasjustageneralsenseofalignmentwithgoodpractice.Thereasonthatwestartedtalkingaboutitatallwasthattherewasasensethatweneedsomekindofdisasterplanninginplace.”Additionally,“wehadthreenear-misssituationsorthingsthatwouldbeconsideredatleastemergencysituations,noneofwhichwecouldhavedescribedaheadoftime.”However,theresultofthisdecisiontodevelopthesepoliciesandprocedureswasthecreationofformalizeddocumentation,includingtemplatesforusebyotherorganizations,thatthestaffofICPSRhas
Frank
27
madeavailableviatheDisasterPlanningsectionoftheirwebsite.Ratherthanfollowingaformatbasedontheneedsofanaudit,theyreliedon“theNISTmodel.”Stafffromtheremainingrepositories(MATRIX,theInternetArchive,andtheNationalLibraryofAustralia),alldiscussedtheexistenceofdisasterplanningpoliciesandprocedures,generallyasdocumentsorcheckliststhatresidewithintheITdepartment.Itseemsthattheserepositorieshavemetthefirststepasdescribedbytheotherorganizationsdiscussedinthissection,buthavenotyettakenthestepofformalizingthesepoliciesandproceduresasasetofdedicateddisasterplanningdocuments.Onecouldspeculatethatiftheserepositorieswentthroughanaudittheywouldlikelycompletetheprocessbycreatingthesedocuments.Thethemeofformalizeddisasterplanningactivitiesforthepurposesofauditorcertificationwasprevalentthroughoutthediscussionswiththoserepositoriesthathavebeenthroughsomeformofaudit.Accordingly,thedocumentationcodingschemewasabletocapturetheoverlapbetweenrespondentsdiscussingcertificationanddisasterplanningdocumentation.Ascanbeseeninthechartbelow,institutionsthathaveundergonecertificationaudithaveahigherlevelofoverlapbetweendiscussionofcertificationanddisasterplanningdocumentationaswellasahigherinstanceofdiscussingeachindependently.
Figure1:CertificationandDisasterPlanningDocumentation
WhileTRACisonlyoneofseveralpossibleauditsthattherepositoriesinthisstudyhaveundertaken,TRACcertificationisthemostcommonlyheldtypeofcertification.Amongmyrespondents,threerepositoriesareTRACcertified,onerepositoryisDSAcertified,andseveralothershavecompletedinformalself-audits.OfthethreerepositoriesthathavebeenTRAC
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Certi,ication
DisasterPlanningDocumentation
Certi,icationandDocumentation
Frank
28
certified,thetwowiththehighestscoresreportthemostcompletedisasterplanningdocumentation.
Figure2:TRACAuditResults
4.2DocumentationWhilealloftheintervieweeswerequicktoprovideassurancethattheirorganizationdidindeedhavedisasterplanningdocumentation,andmanywerehappytoprovideevidenceofthatdocumentationintheformofanauditreport,veryfewwereableorwillingtodiscusstheseplansindetailortoprovidecopiesofthecompletedocumentation.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Chronopolis HathiTrust Portico OptimumRating
OrganizationalInfrastructure
DigitalObjectManagement
Technologies,TechnicalInfrastructure,Security
Frank
29
Figure3:DisasterPlanningDocumentation
BothintervieweesfromChronopolisexplainedthattheorganization’sdisasterplanningdocumentationwascreatedinresponsetotherecentTRACaudit.PerSubjectA,“ingeneraltermswecreatedaTRACreportwhichbasicallyfollowsthequestionandanswerschemaoftheTRACaudititself.”Butuponfurtherdiscussion,SubjectBrevealedthattheChronopolisdisasterplanprimarilyservestopointuserstootherdisasterplanningdocuments,“wedohaveadocumentthatisChronopolisdisasterplanning,butalltheinstructionsforthatdisasterplanninglinkouttootherplaces.”Specificallythat,“Chronopolisisaconsortiumofthreeinstitutions...andeachofthoseentitieshasaspecificdisasterplanforwhathappenstodataintheirdatacenters.AndsowerelyonthosedisasterplansinthosedatacenterstomakeupthewholedisasterplanforChronopolis.”SubjectBdiscoveredwhilereviewingdocumentationduringtheinterviewthat,“it'sjustastatement,wedon'tactuallylinkouttotheotherinstitutions.”Meaning,theinformationthatisavailabletothepublicreferencesotherdocumentsbutdoesnotprovidelinkstothosedocuments.InthewordsofSubjectB,“they'reactuallydifficulttofind.Soyes,they'reavailabletothepublic-butthey'reavailableifyoucanfindthem.”Theintervieweeexplainedthathewasactuallyunabletofindthedocumentswithoutassistancefromtheindividualresponsibleforthemattheparentorganization.SubjectFfromMATRIXstatedthat,“wehavepracticesandwehavesomedocumentationindifferentlocationsthatmoreorlessequatetothat[disasterplanning]butwedon'thaveadirectformalplanthatspeakstoexactlywhatwe'lldointheeventofadisaster.”Inaninterestingexchange,SubjectFexplainedthataformaldisasterplanisnotneededbecausethestepsrequiredtorecoverfromadisastereventaresoobviousandsimplethatanycompetentSystemAdministratorwouldunderstandhowtocarryoutthisaction.“Wehaveawikiandwe'vebeenputtingalotofourdocumentationonthat.Andwedohavealotofourdocumentsregardinghowtobringthesystembackup,andwhatourplansare,andwhatourproceduresare.They'renotinoneactualspotonthewikiyetbutwe'regettingtothatpoint,andreally
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
FullDocumentationAvailable
SomeDocumentaiton
Available
NoDocumentationAvailable
NumberofRepositories
Frank
30
partofthedecisiontomakewithusisdowefocusondocumentingmoreorlessaknownprocedure...mostSysAdminswouldunderstand‘okthere'satapebackup,takethetapebackupandrestoreit’andnowyou'regoodtogomoreorless.Imeanifatworstcasesomeonehopefullywouldknowtoputatapeinthedrive,right?It’scommonsense...atthatpointit'sreallyaquestionoftowhatlevelofdetaildoweget...butdocumentationwehaven'treallyfocusedonalotjustbecauseofthefactthatwe'renotatapointwherewe'recomplexenoughtorequireitinmyopinion.”Thisisanopinionthatwasnotexpressedbyanyothersubjectinthisstudy,andwhichmaybearesultofthefactthatthissubjectwasinarolewithanITfunctionratherthanarolewithapreservationfunction.Aswillbediscussedlater,manyintervieweesdiscussedhavingdifficultyingettingproperdocumentationfromtheITdepartmentswithintheirrespectiveorganizations.Thisdiscussionperhapsprovidessomeinsighttotheothersideofthatfrustration.SubjectJfromTheMetaArchiveCooperativeexplainedthat,“wehavedocumentedcontingencyplansthatlookatanumberofdifferentpointsontheaxisofproblemsthatcoulderuptandwhatwouldhappeninthosekindsofdisasterscenarios”andalsothat,“thereisacontingencypieceforeachoneofourmemberinstitutionsthatispartoftheirowndisasterplanningsotherearethesetwolayerstodisasterplanningasweseeitatMetaArchive.”Inthiscase,therearemultiplecomponentstothedisasterdocumentation.SubjectJgoesontoexplainthat“intermsofdocumentation,itstartedwithourmembershipagreementandourcharterandthosetwocoredocumentsarethelegalunderpinningsfortherelationshipsthatcomprisetheMetaArchivenetwork”aswellas“asecondsetofdocumentationthatwepreparedinresponsetoaTRACauditthatwedidin2008that[resultedin]aformalizedcontingencyplandocumentandsuccessionplan.”Inthiscase,theintervieweewasabletodiscussanddescribeseveraltypesofdocuments,butagainspecificdisasterplanningpoliciesandprocedureswerenotavailable.ThestaffofPorticohavecreatedseveraldifferentdocumentsthatcomprisetheirdisasterplanningdocumentation.PerSubjectH,“ourpoliciesareverytargeted,sowedon'thaveonebigoverarchingpolicyforPortico.Wehaveaseriesofsmallerpolicies...soatPorticowe'vegot13,16,21differentpolicies...Iwouldsaythatthereareprobablythreepoliciesthataredirectlyimpactingdisasterrecovery.”Thisinterviewalsorevealedthat,“wehavetwosets[ofdisasterplanningdocuments].ThereisthesetthatismaintainedbyourITgroup...theyhaveasetofdisasterrecoverpoliciesthattheyhavedevelopedthatinvolvesalotofthisinfrastructuretypestuff.Porticoproperhasasetofgrouppreservationpoliciesarounddisasterrecovery,whichspecifythenumberofbackupsweneedtohavethenumberofreplicaswherethey'regoingtobelocated,ourgeneralphilosophyaboutit.”MuchliketheintervieweefromMATRIX,SubjectHfromPorticoseemstobedescribingadisconnectbetweentheITandPreservationfunctionswithintheorganization.Ratherthanhavingonesetofcombineddisasterplanningdocuments,therearetwoseparatesetsofdocumentsthatdonotseemtobecombinedinanyformalorsignificantway.Infact,theintervieweewasabletodiscusstheITdocumentsinonlybroadstrokes.
Frank
31
ThestaffofHathiTrustweretotallyopenintermsofsharingtheirdocumentationandworkinprogress.AsSubjectCstated,“it’sinprogressrightnow.Wehaveafoundationaloutlinethatwe’reworkingfrom”and“it’snotafunctionalrecoveryplanbyanymeansbutthegoalistogettothat.”Thisdiscussionreinforcedtheideathatthepoliciesandproceduresneededforactualdisasterresponseandrecoveryareinplace,andthatthecreationofformaldisasterplanningdocumentationisaformality,“alotoftheproperthinkinghasbeendoneinverymanywaysandtheproperworkhasbeendonetoensurethatthingswilllikelyfunctionverysmoothlyintheeventofadisaster,buttheworkhasnotbeendonetofullyarticulatetheprocessesinwhichitwilltakeplace.”ThestaffofICPSRwerealsocompletelyopenaboutsharingtheirdisasterdocumentation.SubjectEstated,“wefollowtheNISTmodelforthetypesofdocuments.Soit'sasuiteofdocumentsit'snotasinglething.It'songoing,it'saplanningprocess,thefocusisonplanningasaverb,notplanasanoun.”Nearlyalloftheirdocumentationwasavailableviathedisasterplanningsectionontheorganization’swebsite,andtheindividualinterviewedwasabletosharetheremainingdocumentsviaemail.ThestaffoftheInternetArchivehave,“aninternalchecklistabsolutelywhichwereview”thatismaintainedbyanITdepartment.However,asdiscussedabove,thischecklistisnotconsideredtobeacompletedisasterresponseandrecoveryplan.Itisalsonotavailabletothepublicinanyform.SubjectIinthiscasewaseitherunwillingorunabletodiscussspecificsofthisplan.SubjectGfromtheNationalLibraryofAustraliaexpressedasimilarsituation,“wehaveadigitalpreservationsection,andwehaveaverylargeITsection,andtheITsectiondealswithalotofthethingslikebackups...andsoasmuchasIcouldsaytoyou'yeswedohaveabackupregime'Ican'tgiveyoutheexactdetailsofitbecausetheyrunthosekindofthings.”ThedisconnectbetweenthepreservationandITfunctionsatthisorganizationissogreatthatthedigitalpreservationsectionisactuallynotfamiliarwiththedisasterplanningdocumentationatall.
4.3ProcessofCreationOneoftheprincipalfindingsofthestudyisthattheprocessofseekingcertificationisextraordinarilytimeconsumingandrequiresamajorcommitmenttodocumentation.Thecreationofdisasterplanningdocumentationisreportedbymostrepositoriestohavebeenoneofthemosttimeconsumingaspectsofthisprocess.Discussionswithsubjectsfocusedmuchmoreontheinvestmentoftimeandpeopleintotheprocessofcreatingdisasterplanningdocumentationthanonthespecificsofdecisionsmadewithinthosedocuments.ForSubjectAatChronopolis,“itwastheauditthatwas100%ourguidingforceincreatingthesedocuments.”Andspecifically,they“tooktherequirementsthatthey[TRAC]hadlisted,puttheminabigexcelspreadsheetandthenusedthattodrilldownintospecificquestions.”SubjectAwasalsoabletodiscusssomeoftheindividualsinvolvedintheprocess,althoughnotingreatdetail,“internallywehadacoupledifferentindividualscontribute,theprimaryoneobviouslywouldhavebeentheDataCenterManager,whowasinchargeofmaintainingthe
Frank
32
equipment.”Hewasalsoabletospeaktothecreationofdisasterplanningdocumentationatthethreepartnerinstitutions,“andsimilarlythatwasthecaseatallthreeinstitutionsthatthosetypicallywerethepeopleinvolvedincreatingthedocumentsneededfortheaudit.”Thedocumentationtook“agoodthreetofourmonths”tocomplete,and“wasoneofthemoresignificantsectionsthatwehadtodoalotofnewworkfor...it'sprobablyoneofthelargersectionsforusintermsofhowmuchtimewasspentonit.”ThediscussionwithSubjectsCandDfromHathiTrustfocusedonbothhowtheyareproceeding,andonhowtheyexpecttocreatetheirdisasterplanningdocumentation.ThegeneralphilosophyoftheorganizationexpressedbySubjectDto“doverymuchwhat'spracticalandtrynottopredictthefuture”andtheinterviewwithsubjectsfromHathiTrustreinforcedthisidea.Specifically,SubjectDstatedthat,“wetakeourpracticesandarenotconstrainedbyapolicynecessarilyuntilweactuallydothatthing.”Meaningthatthegoaloftheirdisasterplanningdocumentcreationprocessistoarticulatecurrentpracticesratherthansettingrigidpoliciesandproceduresthatwillneedtobeimplementedandenforced.SubjectJfromtheMetaArchiveCooperativefocusedontheamountoftimespentcompletingthedisasterplanningdocumentation.“Fortheinitialinvestment,whenyoulookatallofthedifferentpeoplewhoareinvolvedandallthedifferentstagesofthatdrafting,Iwouldsayatleast80hoursofpeopletimewentintothedrafting.Nottheapprovalprocess,notthecontinuedrevisionsthatwe'restilldoing,butjustthebase-leveldraftingtoreallygetallofthisdoneandlinedup...atleast80hours.”SubjectJ,however,didnotdiscussthespecificsofhowthattimewasspent,orofwhosetimewasspent.SubjectHfromPorticoalsotalkedaboutlengthoftimetocompletethedisasterplanningdocumentation,althoughitwasdiscussedonlyaspartofalargerprojecttodocumentdigitalpreservationpolicies.“Idon'tknowspecificallyarounddisasterrecovery,Iwouldsaythatitwasprobablyasixmonthprocessforus...weprobablytookaboutsixmonthstoreallyformalizeandfinalizearelativelysubstantialsetofourpreservationpolicies,disasterrecoverybeingoneelementofthatthewholeprocess...itwasactuallyquiteachunkoftimewithparticipationfromthreeorfourpeople.Itwasnotaneasyprocess.”SimilartoHathiTrust,thestaffofPorticobasedtheirdisasterplanningdocumentationdecisionsonfactorsoutsideoftheTRACauditprocess,focusingonthreespecificelements,“environmentalreviewofwhatisrecommended,someverypracticalconsiderationsaboutwhatisphysicallypossible,andthensomebusinessconsiderationsaboutmarketingandoutreach.”AlsolikeHathiTrust,thestaffofPorticoexpressedtheorganizationalattitudeofcraftingpoliciesanddocumentsthatmeettheirneedsanddescribetheirpracticeswithoutbeingoverlyprescriptiveorrestrictive,“wehaveastandardtemplateforhowwewritepolicydocuments.Ourpolicydocumentstendtobe...relativelyhighlevelandstrategic,whichallowsustowriteandchangeimplementationsovertimeandhavedifferentimplementationdocumentationtosupportthehighlevelstrategy.”Inthiscase,SubjectHisagainconfirmingthepreviouslydiscussedfindingthatrepositoriesarereluctanttodiscussdisasterpreparednessdocumentationingreatdetail.
Frank
33
4.4ObstaclesThemajorityofintervieweesincludedinthisstudyreportedsignificantobstaclesorchallengesencounteredintheprocessofcreatingtheirdisasterresponseandrecoveryplanningdocumentation.Themostcommonthemeswerethedifficultyofgettingbuy-infromothermembersoftheorganization,difficultycollaboratingandcommunicatingwiththeITdepartment,andtheamountoftimerequiredforcompletionofthedocumentation.Theseobstaclesalignwiththepreviousfindingthatmostrepositoriesthathaveformalizeddisasterplanningdocumentationcreatedthatdocumentationastheresultofanaudit.Inotherwords,theywereunableorunwillingtocreatethedocumentationwithoutanorganizationalmandatetodoso.Thechartbelowindicatesthenumberoftimesthetopicofbarriersordifficultiestodisasterplanningwasmentionedineachinterview.Thischartshowsthattheintervieweefromtheorganizationwiththemostcompleteandpubliclyavailabledisasterplanningdocumentation(ICPSR)alsospentthemosttimediscussingobstaclestodisasterplanning.TherepositorywiththenexthighestincidenceofdiscussionofobstaclesisHathiTrust,arepositorywhosestaffhasyettocompletetheirdisasterplanningdocumentation.
Figure4:Obstacles
SubjectAfromChronopolisdescribedtheprocessofcreatingthedisasterplanningdocumentationas“herdingcats.”HewentontosaythatthemostsignificantbarriertocompletingthedisasterplanningdocumentationpriortotheTRACaudit“probablywouldhavebeennothavingabigenoughsticktoforcepeopletodoit...itwasn'tuntilwehadanauditorcomeinthatwesaid,'oklookhereguysthat'snotgoodenoughorifthatiswhatwe'regoingtoget,that'sdefinitelygoingtoreflectonourauditreport.'AndsoIhavetosayforus,andIdon'twanttooverstatethisbecausewedidn'thaveaproblembefore,butinordertogetdetaileddocumentsitreallydidtaketheaudittopullthosethingsout.”Chronopolisstaffwereunable
0
1
2
3
4
5
Obstacles
Frank
34
togetdetaileddisasterplanningdocumentationfromthethreepartnerorganizationsuntiltheauditreportimposedahigherdegreeofaccountability.TheintervieweefromICPSR,theonlyorganizationinthisstudywithstaffwhocreateddetaileddisasterplanningdocumentationindependentofanaudit,focusedontheproblemsoforganizationalcooperationanddifficultycoordinatingwiththeITdepartment.SubjectEbeganwithdiscussionofthehistoricalresistancetoformaldisasterplanningactivities,“inthepastIthinkthatitwasoftenlookedatasaluxury...it’sanaturalhumanthingtonotwanttotalkaboutadisasteruntilthedisasteristhereandthenbecaughtshortbecauseyoudon’thaveanyplanninginplace.”Inordertoovercomethisresistance,itwasnecessarytogetbuy-infromseniormembersoftheorganization,memberswhowereinitiallyunwillingtodevotetheirtimetotheprocess,“partofthedifficultyofengaginginrolesandresponsibilitiesisthattheyhavetoatleaststartatthehighestlevelsoftheorganization.Theyviewitascostlytheyviewitasadistraction,butyoucan'tworkatthebottomwhenyou'redealingwithdecisionmakingandactualauthority.”StaffofICPSRalsoexperienceddifficultyin“parsingouttheITpiece...becausewhenyouhaveITasanintegralpartofyourorganizationandyourorganizationiscommittedtolifecyclemanagement,thereisthis‘now’and‘future’andthepeoplewhoaredoingthesethingsdon'toftendistinguishbetweenthehatsthattheyhave.Itwashardtogetthemtofocusonthedifferentparts...wehaveareallygoodITgroup,butit'salsoachallengefordigitalpreservation.”SubjectJfromtheMetaArchiveCooperativefocusedmoreontheproblemoftime,“itisallabouttime,ittakessomuchtimetowritedocuments,figuringoutwhatgoesinthedocumentationandgettingitbythecommittee,andthenstartingthedraftandgettingthatpastthecommitteeandgettingitapproved...Iwouldsaythattimeisthegreatestchallengeofeverythingthatwe'redoingaroundpolicycreation,includingdisasterrecoveryplanning.”Thisalsoindirectlydiscussestheproblemoforganizationalbuy-inandcooperationasitistheprocessofgettingcommitteeapprovalthatseemstotakethemosttime.SubjectGfromtheNationalLibraryofAustraliaexpressedthegreatestdegreeoffrustrationincoordinatingwiththeITsectionoftheorganization,“wehavecertainpeopleinourITsection[who]I’llsayarepreservationdeniers.”Hethengoesontoexplainthat,“sometimesourITdepartment'knowbest'-theytakethehighmoralgroundandthenwecatchthemoutandsay'hangonaminute,you'renotdoingthis,orthis'...andthenITsays'we'reworkingonit'andwefoundsomefrustrationbecausetheyareaseparatedepartment.”Whileformaldisasterplanningdocumentationisnotcurrentlyinplaceatthisorganization,thisdifficultyincoordinatingwiththeITsectioninordertodocumentandcarryoutdigitalpreservationactivitiesextendstodisasterplanningaswell.IntervieweesfromHathiTrustweretheonlytoexplicitlystatethattherewerenoproblemsgettingorganizationalbuy-in.PerSubjectC,“thereisverylittle,andmaybesafetosayno,organizationalresistanceto...makingthedataassafeandasusefulaspossible...organizationalphilosophyistomakesurethatalloftheworkthathasgoneintothisdataisnotgoingtobefornaughtwhenitallgetswipedoutinsomesortofdisaster.”However,thisisan
Frank
35
organizationthathasgonethroughanauditbuthasnotyetproducedformalizeddisasterplanningdocumentation.AsSubjectCstated,theyarestrugglingwiththechallengeofproducingdocumentationthatisbothexcellentandusefulandareworkingtoembracethephilosophyofnot“let[ting]theperfectbetheenemyofthegood.”Thiscaseseemstohighlightthevalueoftheobstaclesthattheotherorganizationshavefaced.Thefigurebelowillustratesthediscussionofobstacles,ofdocumentation,andtheoverlapofobstaclesanddocumentation.IntervieweesfromthreeofthefourrepositoriesthatshowanoverlapindiscussionofobstaclesanddocumentationhavesuccessfullycompletedcertificationwitheitherTRACorDataSealofApprovalandreportthattheyhaveformalizeddisasterplanningdocumentationinplace.Thefourth,HathTrust,hasalsosuccessfullycompletedTRACcertification,butdoesnotyethaveaformalizeddisasterplan.
Figure5:ObstaclesandDocumentation
4.5TestingthePlansAnotherthemethatemergedfromtheinterviewswasthatoftestingthedisasterplanningdocumentationthroughexercisesor“firedrills”oncetherepositoryhadaformaldisasterplaninplace.Threeoftheeightrepositoriesstudieddiscussedsomeformofexercisetotesttheplans,andoneexplainedthattheychosenottorunthesedrillsbecausetheyencounterenoughissuesonaregularbasisthattheirpoliciesandproceduresareunderconstantscrutiny.IntervieweesfromChronopolis,ICPSR,andTheMetaArchiveCooperativeeachdiscussedtheireffortstoregularlytesttheirdisasterplanningdocumentation.ForSubjectAatChronopolis,thatinvolvestestingwherein“webasicallygoandunplugsystemsandthenforceourselvestorecover.”SubjectJatTheMetaArchiveCooperativealsodiscussed“disasterplanningexercises”thatareconducted“onatwoyearbasis.”However,therepresentativefromThe
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Obstacles
DisasterPlanDocumentation
ObstaclesandDocumentation
Frank
36
MetaArchiveCooperativestatedthat,“wehaven'trunafullscaleagain...we’vedonepiecesofitatdifferenttimes.”BothoftheseintervieweesexplainedthattheyfirstranthetestingexercisesforthepurposesoftheTRACaudit.ThestaffoftheMetaArchiveCooperativehavenotrunanotherfulldrillsincethattimeandChronopolishasnotyethadtheopportunitytorunanotherdrillsincetheirauditwasconductedsorecently.Itwillbeinterestingtoseeiftheycontinuewitharegulartestingschedule.SubjectEfromICPSRdescribedanelaboratetabletopexercisescenarioinwhich,“somebodywhoisinwebservicesinourorganization[who]isreallyinvolvedingamingcreatedthiswholescenarioforusandhandedoutcardsofwhoareyouandwhat'syourpartofthescenario.”Fromthisinitialexercisetheywereabletoidentifyweaknessesintheirplans,“somebodyhadtogoawayandfillinsomegaps.”Asaresult,theorganizationhas“committedtodoingthatatleastonceayear.”SubjectFatMATRIX,whoisinanITrolewithintheorganization,statedthat“wehaveenoughissuesfromtimetotimethatwedon'trunfiredrillsanymorebecauseithappensandalotofithastodowithupgradingourinfrastructure...it'sjustreallywhenthere'sunderlyingcoresystemsthatgetupgradedthat'swhentheissuescouldoccur.”Inotherwords,theyspendenoughtimefixingproblemsthattheyknowhowtorecover.ThisresponseechoesotherfindingsregardingtherelationshipbetweenpreservationandIT.Namely,thatitisthoseindividualswhoserolesfallunderpreservationfunctionswhodrivethedevelopmentofformalizeddisasterresponseandrecoveryplanningdocumentation,andthatindividualswhoserolesfallunderITfunctionsaremoreresistanttothesetypesofactivities.
4.6AccesstoDisasterPlanDocumentationMostsubjectsinthestudyexpressedadesiretomaketheirorganization’sdisasterplanningdocumentationavailabletothepublicatsomepointinthefuture.Todate,ICPSRandHathiTrustaretheonlyrepositorieswhosestaffhavemadealloftheirdocumentationpubliclyavailableviatheirwebsiteorviaemailrequest.Intermsofinternalaccess,mostrepositorieshavedisasterplanningdocumentationthatisavailabletoallemployeesoftheorganizationviasomesortofstaffwikiorsharedstoragespace.SubjectEfromICPSRindicatedthatapproximately80%oftheirdisasterplanningdocumentationisavailableontheirwebsite,andthat“wetrytobereallytransparentandifpeopleaskusreallywewouldprovideanythingelsethatisn’tonline.”SubjectEdid,infact,shareadditionalinformationviaemailforthepurposesofthisstudy.ThestaffofHathiTrusthasplacedthefoundationdocumentsfortheirdisasterplanningeffortsonlineviatheorganization’swebsite,andoneoftheintervieweesstatedthattheyintendtocontinuemakingadditionaldocumentationavailable,includingthecompleteddisasterplanningdocumentsoncetheyarecompleted.Theirpositiononthematter,accordingtoSubjectD,isthat“it’sonlytoourbenefitIthinktomakeasmuchofthatavailabletopeoplesotheyknowwhatwe’redoing...ourorientationisopen.”Forthepurposesofthisreport,theywereabletoshareadditionaldocumentationandinformationviaemail.
Frank
37
SubjectAfromChronopolisexplainedthat,“wedointendtomakeitaspublicaspossible,”butalsostated,“we'regoingtohaveacouplepointswherewhateverwemakepublicwe'regoingtohavetodoitatsuchahighlevelthatitdoesn'trevealcompromisingdetails...andnotputanythingthere.”Theorganizationisstrugglingwithwantingtomaketheirinformationavailablebutneedingtorespecttheprivacyandsecurityneedsoftheirpartnerorganizations.ThesearethesamepartnerorganizationsthatwerereluctanttoevenprovidedisasterresponseandrecoveryinformationtoChronopolistobeginwith,asdiscussedabove.Theydid,however,indicatethattheentirestaffandallpartnerorganizationshaveaccesstothisinformationinternally.StaffatallmemberinstitutionsformingtheMetaArchiveCooperativehaveaccesstotheirdisasterplanningdocumentationforallstaff.PerSubjectJ,“that'sallonourwiki,whichispartofourcoreinfrastructurethatishousedinthecloudsoitisaccessibletoallofourmemberinstitutionsbothformaintenanceofthedocumentandthenalsoforviewingthedocument.Itisapasswordprotectedarea.”Accesstothisdocumentationisrestrictedto“membersorpeoplewhohaveformalizedrelationships”withtheorganization.ThestaffoftheMetaArchiveCooperativeisintheprocessoftryingtomakethisdocumentationavailableviatheirwebsite,andSubjectJstatedthat“forthedisasterrecoverythusfaritdoesnotlooklikewe'llneedtorestricttheinformationtherein,there'snothingtherethat...wouldcompromiseMetaArchive.”Portico,MATRIX,andtheInternetArchiveallhavedocumentationthatisavailableinternallytostaffbutdonotplantomakethatinformationavailabletothepublic.SubjectFstatedthatatMATRIX,“allstudentsandstaff,anyonethatbasicallyhasaMATRIXloginwhichiseveryonethatworkshere[hasaccesstothedocumentationonthestaffwiki].”SubjectHfromPorticomaintainsthat,“theITspecificdisasterrecoverydocuments,whichareprettyspecificandnotthetypeofthingyoucanmakepubliclyavailable,aremaintainedinternallyonly.”AndwhileSubjectIfromtheInternetArchivestatedthat,“everyone[intheorganization]hasaccesstoit[thechecklist]”andthat“oneofthefoundingprinciplesoftheInternetArchiveisuniversalaccesstoallknowledge...thattricklesdowntoallofourdocumentation,”healsostatedthathewouldnotbeabletosharetheirdisasterresponseandrecoverychecklistwithanyoneoutsideoftheorganization.SubjectGfromtheNationalLibraryofAustraliawastheonlypersonwhocommunicatedthatthedisasterplanningdocumentationwasnotavailablepublicly,norwasitavailableinternally.Rather,thedocumentsresidewiththeITdepartmentandhavenotbeensharedormadewidelyavailable,“Ihaven’t[hadcontactwiththeplan]...ournewsystemshopefullywillmakeitavailabletoeveryone.”ThisechoesthesentimentexpressedbySubjectGearlierintheinterview,anddiscussedelsewhereinthispaper,thatoneoftheprimaryobstaclestodisasterplanninginthisorganizationiscommunicationwiththeITdepartment.AsFigure6belowshows,theintervieweefromtherepositorywiththehighestlevelofaccesstodocumentation,ICPSR,alsodiscussedaccesstodocumentationmorefrequently.Staffatthe
Frank
38
repositorywiththelowestlevelofaccesstodocumentation,theNationalLibraryofAustralia,mentionedaccesstodocumentationtheleast.OtherorganizationswhoseintervieweesalsoreportlowlevelsofaccesstodocumentationsuchasMATRIXandtheInternetArchivealsoshowlowratesofdiscussionofaccesstodocumentation.Intervieweesfromrepositoriesthatprovideaccesstosome,butnotall,oftheirdocumentationgenerallyfallsomewhereinthemiddle.
Figure6:Access
5.DiscussionInthissection,Iwilldiscussthethreemainfindingsofthisstudyingreaterdetail.Thethreemajorfindingsofthisstudyarethat:
1. Formostorganizations,theprocessofgoingthroughanauditforcertificationasatrustedrepositoryprovidedtheimpetusforthecreationofformalizeddisasterplanningdocumentation.
2. Despitethedesireforopennessmostrepositoriesstrugglewithmakingtheirdisasterplanningdocumentationpubliclyavailable.
3. ThesinglegreatestobstacletodisasterplanningactivitiesatallstagesoftheprocessiscoordinationbetweentheITandpreservationfunctions.
Iwillalsoaddresspossiblelimitationsofthestudy,anddiscussdirectionsforfutureresearch.OnepatternIobservedthroughouttheinterviewprocesswasthatorganizationssuchasChronopolis,ICPSR,Portico,andTheMetaArchiveCooperative,thathavebeenthroughsomesortofauditprocess,weremorelikelytohavecompletedisasterplanningdocumentationinplace.Theseorganizationsdiscussedtherolethattheauditplayedinprovidingmotivationto
012345678
Access
Frank
39
completethisdocumentation,anddiscussedthechallengesthathadpreventedthemfromcompletingthisdocumentationpreviously.Centraltothiswastheideathatuntiltheorganizationwasprovidedwithasuitablyattractiveincentive(i.e.certification),itwasdifficultorimpossibletoconvinceotherdepartmentssuchasITandAdministrationtospendtimedocumentingpoliciesandproceduresthatwereeitherformallydocumentedelsewhereortacitlyunderstood.Repositoriesstrugglewiththedecisiontomakedisasterplanningdocumentationavailabletothegeneralpublic.Iexpectedrepositoriesthathadbeenthroughanauditforcertificationofsomesortwouldbewillingtomakeatleastpartsoftheirdisasterplanningdocumentationpubliclyavailable.AsoneofthevalueprinciplesofTRACistransparency,andthistransparencehelpspeopletotrustrepositories,itseemednaturalthattheywouldthenmakethatsameinformation,orsomeportionthereof,availabletothepublic.AsIdiscovered,thisisgenerallynotthecase.Theavailabilityofdocumentationregardingdisasterplanningactivitiesvarieswidelyamongrepositoriesandrunsthefullspectrumfromfullyavailabletocompletelyrestricted.Finally,Ifoundthatthesinglegreatestobstacledodisasterplanningactivitiesatallstagesoftheprocessiscoordination,orlackofcoordination,betweentheITandpreservationfunctionswithinanorganization.SubjectsinpreservationandadministrationrolesexpressedfrustrationwiththelackofcommunicationandcooperationfromtheITdepartmentsintheirorganizations.SubjectsinITfunctionsexpressedabeliefthatformaldisasterplanningactivitieswereunnecessaryandapooruseoftimeandresourcesfortheorganization.Thisisrelatedtothefirstfindinginthatitseemstobethecasethatorganizationsarebestabletoovercomethisobstaclearethosethatcandemonstrateaconcretebenefit,suchacertification,thatwillresultfromtheproductionofformaldisasterplanningdocumentation.Thesefindingssuggestthatoneoftheprimarybenefitsachievingtrusteddigitalrepositorystatus,inadditiontothecertificationitself,isthefactthatitprovidesanincentivefortheentireorganizationtocreateaccurate,up-to-date,thoroughdocumentationofpoliciesandprocedures.Fororganizationsthatalreadyhavedocumentationinplace,suchasICPSRandPortico,theauditprovidestheorganizationwithanopportunitytoimproveandupdatetheirdocumentation.ThesefindingsalsosuggestthatagreaterdegreeofcommunicationandcooperationisneededbetweenpreservationandITfunctionswithindigitalrepositories.AconsistentpatternintheinterviewswasthedifficultyinworkingwithIT,andtheresistanceofthatgrouptoparticipateinformaldisasterplanningdocumentationefforts.Conversely,thisproblemcanbeseenasashortcomingonthepartofdigitalpreservationpolicymakers.Perhapsanopportunityforeducationandbettercommunicationexistsbetweenthedifferentfunctions.WhiletheITfunctionseemstoalmostuniversallyhavebeenanobstacletodisasterplanningeffortsintherepositoriesinthisstudy,intervieweesalsostatedthatthisseemstobeacaseofindividualsintheITrolenothavingthesameunderstandingofandappreciationfordisasterplanning.Anopportunityexistsforthoseinthefieldofdigitalpreservationtofindwaysofcommunicating
Frank
40
withthoseinIT,inordertoimprovecollaborationandcoordinationthroughouttheorganization.Theinitialresearchquestionforthisstudyfocusedoninvestigatinghowrepositoriesareengagingindisasterplanningactivities.Afterexaminingthepracticesofseveralwell-respecteddigitalrepositories,ithasbecomeclearthatoneofthereasonsthatsofewstudieshavebeenconductedinthisareaisthatdigitalrepositories,untilrecently,didnottohavedocumentedtheirdisasterplanningeffortsatall.Ithasalsobecomeclearthatitisnotpossibletogainafullunderstandingofthedisasterplanningeffortsofanorganizationifthoseeffortsarenotcodifiedandmadeavailableforreview.Thefactthatonlytwooftheeightrepositorieswereableorwillingtomaketheirdisasterplanningdocumentationpubliclyavailablewasamajorlimitationforthisstudy.Additionally,thislackofmodelsmaybehamperingdisasterplanningeffortsinthecommunityThereareseveralotherfactorsthatcouldbeconsideredweaknessesorlimitationsofthisstudy.First,thesmallpopulationsizemakesitdifficulttodrawconclusionsthatcouldbegeneralizedtoalargerpopulation.Thislimitedscopeispartlyaresultofthesmallnumberofrepositoriesthatareengagingintrustedrepositoryauditsandpartlyaresultofthelimitedtimeframeinwhichthisstudywasconducted.Additionalstudiesinthisareamaywanttoconsiderincludingagreaternumberofrepositories.Second,speakingtoonlyoneortwoindividualsateachrepositorydoesnotprovideacompletepictureoftheentirelifecycleofthedisasterplanningprocess.Inordertogainafull,completeunderstandingoftheactivitiesatanygivenrepository,itwouldbeidealtointerviewseveralindividualsfromdifferentdepartmentsorfunctionswithinarepository.Forastudysuchasthis,interviewingindividualsindigitalpreservation,administration,andITwouldprovideawell-roundedviewofdisasterplanningactivities.Third,futureresearchwoulddowelltoeitherfocusononetypeofrepository,ortostudyabroadspectrumofrepositorytypes.Ofthefinaleightrepositoriesincludedinthisstudy,oneisanationallibrary,oneisaninstitutionalrepository,andtherestarenonprofitorganizationswithvaryingdegreesofaffiliationwithacademicinstitutions.Whilethisfinalselectionwasaresultofavailabilityandconvenience,theresultsmayhavebeenquitedifferentiftheresearchfocusedonlyonnationaldigitalrepositories,oroninstitutionalrepositories.Additionally,allbutoneoftherepositoriesinthisstudyarebasedintheUnitedStates.Withalargerandmoregeographicallydiversepopulation,thestudymighthavebeenabletoexamineregionalornationaltrendsinordertounderstandhownationalityand/orlocationaffectdisasterplanningactivities.
6.ConclusionThisstudyfoundthatwhilerepositoriesareengagingindisasterplanningactivities,theyaredoingsolargelyasameanstoobtaintrusteddigitalrepositorystatus.Furthermore,repositoriesarereluctantorunwillingtosharetheirdisasterplanningdocumentation.This
Frank
41
suggeststhatwhileoneofthekeyelementsofcertificationprogramsfordigitalrepositoriesisthecreationofformalizeddocumentationofpoliciesandprocedures,thesearenotbenefittingthecommunityasmuchastheycould.SincetransparencyisacoretenetofTRAC,auditorsshouldinsistthattrusteddigitalrepositoriessharedisasterplanningdocumentationandmakenon-sensitivepoliciesandproceduresavailabletothepublicinordertomeetthecriteriafortrustedrepositorystatus,ortoincludetherepository’sdocumentationinthefinalauditreportdemonstratingthattheyhavemetthecriteriaforcertification.Noneoftherepositoriesincludedinthisstudyhavehadtheopportunitytousetheirdisasterplanningdocumentation.Whileonehopesthattheseorganizationswillneverhavetheneedfortheiruse,anopportunityforfutureresearchexistsintheimplementationanduseofthesedocuments.Inherarticleondisasterpreparedness,Schmidtobservesthat,“givenenoughtime,thelikelihoodofamajordisasterataninstitutionbecomesanearcertainty”(Schmidt,2010).
7.AcknowledgementsIwouldliketothankDr.ElizabethYakel,Dr.PaulConway,andShannonZacharyfortheirsupportandguidancethroughoutthecourseofthisproject.
Frank
42
ReferencesAikin,J.(2007).PreparingforaNationalEmergency:TheCommitteeonConservationof
CulturalResources,1939-1944.TheLibraryQuarterly,77(3),257.
Altman,M.,Adams,M.,Crabtree,J.,Donakowski,D.,Maynard,M.,Pienta,A.,&Young,C.(2009).DigitalPreservationthroughArchivalCollaboration:TheDataPreservationAlliancefortheSocialSciences.TheAmericanArchivist,72(1),170-184.
Anderson,C.(2005).DigitalPreservation:WillYourFilesStandtheTestofTime?LibraryHiTechNews,22(6),9-10.
Anderson,C.(2008).TheEndofTheory:TheDataDelugeMakestheScientificMethodObsolete.WiredMagazine,16(7).RetrievedfromWiredMagazinewebsite:http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory
Andrew,G.(2008).BusinessContinuity:BestPractices.eWeek,25(33),32.
Babbie,E.R.(2010).ThePracticeofSocialResearch.Belmont,CA:WadsworthCengage.
Ball,A.(2010).ReviewoftheStateoftheArtoftheDigitalCurationofResearchData:UniversityofBath.
Barateiro,J.A.,Goncalo;Freitas,Filipe;Borbinha,Jose.(2010).DesigningDigitalPreservationSolutions:ARiskManagement-BasedApproach.TheInternationalJournalofDigitalCuration,5(1),4-17.
Battersby,R.(2005).Recoveringfromdisaster:thelossofEdinburgh'sAILibrary.Library+InformationUpdate,4(3),36-36-38.
Beagrie,N.,Chruszcz,J.,&Lavoie,B.(2008).KeepingResearchDataSafe:JISC.
Berman,F.(2008).Gotdata?:aguidetodatapreservationintheinformationage.CommunicationsoftheACM,51(12),50-56.
Berman,F.,Lavoie,B.,Ayris,P.,Choudhury,G.S.,Cohen,E.,Courant,P.N.,...VanCamp,A.(2010).SustainableEconomicsforaDigitalPlanet:EnsuringLong-TermAccesstoDigitalInformation;BlueRibbonTaskForceonSustainableDigitalPreservationandAccessFinalReport.
BestPracticesinDisasterRecoveryBusinessContinuityPlanning.(2008).Baseline.
Brennan,C.,&O'Hara,E.(2002).Murphywasalibrarian:acasestudyinhownottohandleasystemscrash.ComputersinLibraries,22(3),10-10-12.
Frank
43
CenterforResearchLibraries.(2007).TenPrinciples.RetrievedApril2012,fromhttp://www.crl.edu/archiving-preservation/digital-archives/metrics-assessing-and-certifying/core-re
CenterforResearchLibraries.(2010).CRLCertificationReportonPorticoAuditFindings.
CenterforResearchLibraries.(2011).CRLCertificationReportontheHathiTrustDigitalRepository.
CenterforResearchLibraries.(2012a).CRLCertificationReportonChronopolis.
CenterforResearchLibraries.(2012b).ReportsonDigitalArchivesandRepositories.RetrievedonApril18,2012fromhttp://www.crl.edu/archiving-preservation/digital-archives/digital-archive-reports
Cervone,H.F.(2006).Disasterrecoveryandcontinuityplanningfordigitallibrarysystems.OCLCSystems&Services:Internationaldigitallibraryperspectives,22(3),173.
Constantinescu,C.,Parulkar,I.,Harper,R.,&Michalak,S.(2008).SilentDataCorruption-Mythorreality?InternationalConferenceonDependableSystemsandNetworks.
Cousins,T.J.(2007).DevisingPost-DisasterContinuityPlansthatMeetActualRecoveryNeeds.IEEETechnologyandSocietyMagazine,26(3),13.
DataIntensiveCyberEnvironmentsGroup.(2008).iRODS:integratedRuleOrientedDataSystemWhitePaper:UniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill,UniversityofCaliforniaatSanDiego.
DataSealofApproval.(2012).AboutDataSealofApproval.RetrievedApril18,2012,fromhttp://datasealofapproval.org/
EducopiaInstitute.(2012).TheMetaArchiveCooperative.RetrievedApril18,2012,fromhttp://www.metaarchive.org/
Fletcher,A.M.(2006).NoPointofReference:AHurricaneofMedicalInformationNeeds.JournalofHospitalLibrarianship,6(2),1-14.
Gantz,J.F.,Chute,C.,Manfrediz,A.,Minton,S.,Reinsel,D.,Schlichting,W.,&Toncheva,A.(2011).TheDiverseandExplodingDigitalUniverse:AnUpdatedForecastofWorldwideInformationGrowthThrough2011.Framingham,MA.
Garrett,J.,Waters,D.J.(1996).PreservingDigitalInformation.ReportoftheTaskForceonArchivingofDigitalInformation.[S.l.]:DistributedbyERICClearinghouse.
HathiTrust.(2012a).AboutHathiTrust.RetrievedApril18,2012,fromhttp://www.hathitrust.org/about
Frank
44
HathiTrust.(2012b).HathiTrustExectuiveCommittee.Retrieved2012,fromhttp://www.hathitrust.org/xcom
Heiser,J.(2011).BestPracticesforRecoveringCriticalDataFromDamagedHardDrivesandOtherPhysicalMedia:GartnerResearch.
Hey,T.T.,Anne.(2003).Thedatadeluge:ane-Scienceperspective.InF.H.Berman,A.;Fox,G.(Ed.),GridComputing-MakingtheGlobalInfrastructureaReality(pp.809-824):JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd.
Hitchcock,S.,Brody,T.,Hey,J.M.N.,&Carr,L.(2007).DigitalPreservationServiceProviderModelsforInstitutionalRepositories:TowardsDistributedServices.D-LibMagazine,13(5/6).
Holsti,O.R.(1969).Contentanalysisforthesocialsciencesandhumanities.Reading,Mass.:Addison-WesleyPub.Co.
IInstituteofRiskManagement,AssociationofInsuranceandRiskManagers&PublicRiskManagementAssociation.(2002).ARiskManagementStandard(p.14):InstituteofRiskManagement,AssociationofInsuranceandRiskManagers&PublicRiskManagementAssociation.
IInter-UniversityConsortiumforPoliticalandSocialResearch.(2011,2011).AboutICPSR.RetrievedApril18,2012,2012,fromhttp://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/org/index.jsp
Innocenti,P.,&Vullo,G.(2009).AssessingthePreservationofInstitutionalRepositorieswithDRAMBORA:CaseStudiesfromtheUniversityofGlasgow.BollettinoAIB,49(2),139-158.
Inter-UniversityConsortiumforPoliticalandSocialResearch.(2011).ICPSRTimeline.RetrievedApril18,2012,fromhttp://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/org/timeline.jsp
InternationalOrganizationforStandardization.(2012).Spacedataandinformationtransfersystems—Auditandcertificationoftrustworthydigitalrepositories(ISO16363).Switzerland:InternationalOrganizationforStandardization.
InternetArchive.(2012).AboutTheInternetArchive.RetrievedApril18,2012,fromhttp://archive.org/about/about.php
Maniatis,P.,Roussopoulos,M.,Giuli,T.J.,Rosenthal,D.S.H.,&Baker,M.(2005).TheLOCKSSpeer-to-peerdigitalpreservationsystem.ACMTransactionsonComputingSystems,23(1),2-50.
MATRIX.(2012).AboutMATRIX.RetrievedApril18,2012,fromhttp://www2.matrix.msu.edu/about/
Frank
45
McDonald,R.H.,&Walters,T.O.(2010).RestoringTrustRelationshipswithintheFrameworkofCollaborative.JournalofDigitalInformation,11(1).
McHugh,A.R.,Seamus;Innocenti,Perla;Ruusalepp,Raivo;Hofman,Hans.(2008).BringngSelf-assessmentHome:RepositoryProfilingandKeyLinesofEnquirywithinDRAMBORA.TheInternationalJournalofDigitalCuration,3(2),130-142.
McKnight,M.(2006).HealthSciencesLibrarians'ReferenceServicesDuringaDisaster.MedicalReferenceServicesQuarterly,25(3),1.
Minor,D.Sutton,D.;Kozbial,A.;Westbrook,B.;Burek,M.;Smorul,M..(2010).ChronopolisDigitalPreservationNetwork.TheInternationalJournalofDigitalCuration,5(1),119-133.
Moore,R.(2008).TowardsaTheoryofDigitalPreservation.TheInternationalJournalofDigitalCuration,3(1),63-75.
Muir,A.,&Shenton,S.(2002).IftheWorstHappens:Theuseandeffectivenessofdisasterplansinlibrariesandarchives.LibraryManagement,23(3),115-123.
Myles,B.(2000).Theimpactofalibraryfloodoncomputeroperations.ComputersinLibraries,20(1),44-44-46.
NationalLibraryofAustralia.(2012a).DigitalPreservation.RetrievedApril18,2012,fromhttp://www.nla.gov.au/preserve/digipres/
NationalLibraryofAustralia.(2012b).DigitalPreservationPolicy.RetrievedApril18,2012,fromhttp://www.nla.gov.au/policy-and-planning/digital-preservation-policy
NationalLibraryofAustralia.(2012c).DigitalPreservationDirectionsStatement2008to2012.RetrievedfromApril18,2012,fromhttp://www.nla.gov.au/digital-preservation-directions-statement-2008-to-2012
Nollau,B.(2009).DisasterRecoveryandBusinessContinuity.JournalofGXPCompliance,13(3),51.
Patel,M.C.,Simon.(2007).AStudyofCurationandPreservationIssuesintheeCrystalsDataReositoryandProposedFederation.eBank-UKPhase3:WP4,1-34.
Patkus,B.L.,&Motylewski,K.(1993).DisasterPlanning.PreservationLeaflets.RetrievedfromNortheastDocumentConservationCenterwebsite:http://www.nedcc.org/resources/leaflets/3Emergency_Management/03DisasterPlanning.php
Pennock,M.(2007).DigitalCuration:ALife-CycleApproachtoManagingandPreservingUsableDigitalInformation.Library&Archives(1),3.
Frank
46
Portico.(2012).AboutPortico.RetrievedApril18,2012,fromhttp://www.portico.org/digital-preservation/about-us
Rajasekar,A.(2010).iRODSprimerintegratedrule-orienteddatasystem.SanRafael,Calif.(1537FourthStreet,SanRafael,CA94901USA):Morgan&ClaypoolPublishers.
Robson,C.(1993).Realworldresearch:aresourceforsocialscientistsandpractitioner-researchers.Oxford,UK;Cambridge,Mass.,USA:Blackwell.
Rombouts,J.,&Princic,A.(2010).Buildinga'datarepository'forheterogenoustechnicalresearchcommunitiesthroughcollaborations.PaperpresentedattheInternationalAssociationofScientificandTechnologicalUniversityLibraries,31stAnnualConference.http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul2010/conf/day2/10
Ross,S.M.,Andrew.(2006).PreservationPressurePoints:EvaluatingDiverseEvidenceforRiskManagement.PaperpresentedattheiPRES2006,NewYork,NY.
SanDiegoSupercomputerCenter.(2011b).Infrastructure.RetrievedApril18,2012,fromhttp://chronopolis.sdsc.edu/infrastructure/index.html
SanDiegoSupercomputerCenter.(2011a).AboutChronopolis.RetrievedApril18,2012,fromhttp://chronopolis.sdsc.edu/about/index.html
Schmidt,G.(2010).Web2.0forDisasterResponseandRecovery.JournalofWebLibrarianship,4(4),413-426.
Schroeder,B.G.,GarthA.(2007).DIskfailuresintherealworld:WhatdoesanMTTFof1,000,000hoursmeantoyou?PaperpresentedattheFAST'07:5thUSENIXConferenceonFileandStorageTechnologies,SanJose,CA.
Schultz,M.(2010).MetaArchiveCooperativeTRACAuditChecklist.Atlanta,GA:EducopiaInstitute.
Sesink,L.;vanHorik,R.;Harmsen,H.(2010).DataSealofApproval:QualityGuidelinesforDigitalResearchData(2ndEditioned.).TheHague:DataArchivingandNetworkedServices(DANS).
Skinner,K.W.,Tyler.(2011).NewRolesforNewTimes:DigitalCurationforPreservation,PublishedbyARL.Washington,D.C:AssociationofResearchLibraries.
Tennant,R.(2001).Copingwithdisasters.LibraryJournal,126(19),26.
TheDataSealofApprovalBoard.(2011).ImplementationoftheDataSealofApproval:Inter-UniversityConsortiumforPoliticalandSocialResearch:DataSealofApproval.
Frank
47
Wheatman,V.(2001).Aftermath:DisasterRecoveryAftermath.Stamford,CT:GartnerResearch.
Wheatman,V.S.,Donna;Witty,RobertaJ.(2001).Aftermath:BusinessContinuityPlanningAftermath.Stamford,CT:GartnerResearch.
Wildemuth,B.M.(2009).Applicationsofsocialresearchmethodstoquestionsininformationandlibraryscience.Westport,Conn.:LibrariesUnlimited.
Wong,Y.L.,&Green,R.(2006).DisasterPlanninginLibraries.JournalofAccessServices,4(3/4),71-82.
Frank
48
AppendixA:ConsenttoParticipateinaResearchStudyInterviewInvitationtoParticipateinaResearchStudy
You are invited to be a part of a study exploring how digital repositories are engaging in disaster planning activities.
Description of Subject Involvement.
Interview questions will concern the nature of your organization’s attitude toward disaster planning activities, the process by which your organization’s disaster plan was created, specific elements of that plan, and how your organization has implemented/used the plan. The interview will last approximately one hour.
Benefits.
Although you may not directly benefit from this study, others may benefit because of the comparison of digital disaster planning processes and documents.
Risks and Discomforts.
There are minimal risks associated with this study. Due to the fact that so few people are involved in digital disaster planning, the researchers are aware that you may not be able to remain completely anonymous.
Confidentiality.
We plan to publish the results of this study. If we quote from you, you will be given the opportunity to review and approve the use of any quotations that could be attributed to you. There are some reasons why people other than the researchers may need to see information you provided as part of the study. This includes organizations responsible for making sure the research is done safely and properly, including the University of Michigan and government offices.
All research records will be kept confidential to the extent provided by federal, state, and local laws. Data from the study will be kept in a secure location. These data may be used again in future research studies. Your real name will not appear in notes, transcripts or audio file names. Photographs, with permission, may be used in publications. You will be given a copy of this document for your records and one copy will be kept with the research records.
Consent.
Interviewees will get no direct benefits from this research. With your consent, this session will be audio taped.
Your participation in this study is voluntary. Subsequent to your consent, you may refuse to answer specific questions, withdraw from the study at any time, or ask that information be removed from our data set. You may also ask questions concerning the study before, during, or after the study.
Frank
49
Contact Information.
If you have questions about this research you may contact Rebecca D. Frank, University of Michigan, School of Information, (248) 854-0319, [email protected] or Elizabeth Yakel, University of Michigan, School of Information, (734) 763-3569, [email protected], fax (734) 615 - 3587.
This study has been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Michigan and granted “Not Regulated” status. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, or wish to obtain information, ask questions or discuss any concerns about this study with someone other than the researcher(s), please contact the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board Health Sciences and Behavioral Sciences, (734) 936-0933, or toll free (866) 936-0933 540 E. Liberty St., Suite 202 Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2210, [email protected]. (For international calls include the US Calling Code 1 and the exit number for the country of origin XXX+1+734-936-0933.)
Consent.
By signing this document, you are agreeing to be in the study. You will be given a copy of this document for your records and one copy will be kept with the study records. Be sure that questions you have about the study have been answered and that you understand what you are being asked to do. You may contact the researcher if you think of a question later. I agree to participate in the study. _____________________________________ Printed Name _____________________________________ _____________________________ Signature Date
Frank
50
AppendixB:QuestionsforSemi-StructuredInterview
1. What is the nature of your organization’s attitude toward disaster planning for digital collections? What types of activities has your organization undertaken regarding disaster preparedness/business continuity/continuity of service/etc.?
2. Does your organization have a formal disaster plan? a. For how long have you had a formal disaster plan? b. What was the impetus for the creation of this plan? c. Who is responsible for the maintenance of the plan?
3. If not, why? What documentation do you use in lieu of a formal disaster plan?
a. Does your organization intend to create a disaster plan? b. What has prevented you from developing a plan thus far?
4. Please describe the process by which your disaster plan was created.
a. Please discuss any of the following resources used in the creation of your organization’s plan: standards, other organizations, other documentation and/or models, original research, professional organizations.
b. What departments/individuals were involved in the creation of your disaster plan? Administration, digital preservation, systems, facilities?
c. Did you consult with any external organizations? Backup sites, vendor agreements, power company, internet service providers, etc.?
d. How long did it take? Were any parts of the process particularly time-consuming or challenging?
e. Did the plan require any formal approval in your organization? Please discuss.
5. Discussion of specific elements of the plan. (Questions will vary depending on the organization’s plan/documentation).
6. Please describe the process by which your disaster plan is updated. Do you have a
formal review schedule to update the plan? Who is involved in this process? a. Who is responsible for maintenance of the plan? For updating the plan?
7. Is your organization TRAC Certified? Data Seal of Approval? Any other
certifications? a. What impact has this certification had on your organization’s disaster planning
efforts? b. Did you have a disaster plan prior to certification?
8. What obstacles did you encounter during the development of your disaster plan?
How did you overcome these obstacles/difficulties?
9. Who has access to the disaster plan? a. Are different versions available (i.e. a version for the general public vs. a
restricted-access version for staff)? b. How is this plan made available (online, hard copy, etc.)? c. How are staff members (and possibly others) made aware of the plan?
Frank
51
d. Does your organization conduct training regarding the plan?
10. Have you had occasion to use the plan? a. Please describe the event(s). b. What elements of the plan were most useful? Least useful? c. How did your organization access the plan? Which method of access was most
useful? d. How did this event affect your organization’s view of the plan? e. Did this event prompt changes to the plan?
11. Please discuss how disaster planning fits into your organization’s budget.