Output – NECTAR: Nectar Case History – embedding

Title: NECTAR: Northampton Electronic Collection of Theses And Research

Pages: all
Date Released: 2008

Summary of contents:
“Existing research reporting channels are being exploited to gather NECTAR content. From January 2008 the university’s Annual Research Report will be derived from NECTAR — if a research output is not in NECTAR it will not be reported.”

URI for Output: http://nectar.northampton.ac.uk/NECTAR_case_study_OR08_ver2.pdf

Comments:
this case study is largely superceded by the fuller later one – but i don’t recollect this line in the later article.
This illustrates both how embedded the NECTAR repository has become within the institution and also one of the roles a repsitory can play in the institutional infrastructure.

Advertisements

Output – Nectar: Software Functional requirements

Title: Software for NECTAR: Functional requirement

Pages: all
Date Released: 2008

Summary of contents:
3 page specification of the functional requirements for NECTAR’s repository.
It covers key points including:

  • Visibility / accessibility
  • User interface
  • File handling
  • Support
  • Management
  • Demonstration
  • Hardware [recommendations]

URI for Output: http://nectar.northampton.ac.uk/IR_Final_functional_spec.doc

Comments:
This requirement specifcation informs other institutions considering their requirements of a repository system.

Output – NECTAR: ALISS Case Study – embedding

Title:Gathering NECTAR at The University of Northampton

Pages: 2-7
Date Released: 2008

Summary of contents:
Quotes highlighted in article’s text provide useful summary of key features of this output.

  • “From the start, NECTAR has been a joint project between the Department of Information Services and the research community. This was not to be seen as a ‘library thing’.”
  • “By consulting widely at an early stage we gained greater understanding of our future users’ needs, generated interest in the project and flagged up future challenges.”
  • “Gaining commitment from your own senior management is crucial; involving them in the direction of the project is even better.”
  • “A snappy name, ideally with positive connotations, is easy to remember and works well later in marketing and advocacy activities. “
  • “Gaining acceptance of NECTAR’s fundamental principles by the University Research Committee gave them ownership of the repository and gave it an authority which could be exploited later.”
  • “The combination of outsourced initial implementation followed by ongoing in-house support has worked extremely well for us; the service provided by the Eprints team has been particularly good.”
  • “Populating the repository with the institution’s most prestigious research outputs [i.e. the metadata of RAE submitted papers] not only set a high standard for the showcase, but also conveyed a clear message to potential depositors: this is where the best research should be.”
  • “By embedding NECTAR into the research reporting processes of the university, the repository immediately became part of researchers’ normal workflow.”

URI for Output: http://nectar.northampton.ac.uk/1283/

Citation: [accepted version] Pickton, M. (2008) Gathering NECTAR at The University of Northampton. ALISS Quarterly. 3(4), pp. 33-38. 1747-9258.

Comments:
The italicised quotes highlight some of the key features of the embedding strategy so far and offer an example of the advocacy dimension of the process of setting up a repository.

Output – NECTAR: ALISS Case Study – scope/theses

Title:Gathering NECTAR at The University of Northampton

Pages: 3 and
Date Released: 2008

Summary of contents:
The Research Committee’s support shaped the scope of the repository and has helped secure mandatory deposit of research degrees.

“Members of the focus group [a subgroup of the University Research Committee] were primarily concerned about the quality of NECTAR content and it was decided that NECTAR should contain only items that had previously been made available in the public domain. So, published journal articles, exhibited artifacts and presented conference papers were acceptable; internal working papers and other unpublished work were not. Research degree theses (PhD and MPhil level) were to be included, but not undergraduate or taught Masters level dissertations.” p3

“We had had the support of Professor Hugh Matthews in our Steering Group from the very start. As Chair of the university’s Research Degrees Committee and Deputy Chair of the University Research Committee, Hugh gave us very useful influence in both groups. A proposal for the mandatory submission of electronic copies of research degree theses was accepted by the Research Degrees Committee in December 2007 and a proposal to ensure that all research outputs are included in NECTAR is scheduled for discussion in June 2008” p5

URI for Output: http://nectar.northampton.ac.uk/1283/

Citation: [accepted version] Pickton, M. (2008) Gathering NECTAR at The University of Northampton. ALISS Quarterly. 3(4), pp. 33-38. 1747-9258.

Comments:
This illustrates the type of backing that is helpful in securing mandated deposit for theses and marks Northampton as a UK institution with a mandate for the deposit of doctorates and related research degrees.

Project – NECTAR

Project Name: Northampton Electronic Collection of Theses And Research

Short Project Name: Nectar

Brief project description:

“The NECTAR project encompasses the creation and population of a digital institutional repository for The University of Northampton and the development of policies and workflows to ensure its sustainability for the future.”

Outputs:

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation Programme

Strand: Repositories start-up and enhancement projects

JISC Project URI:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/reppres/sue/nectar.aspx

Project URI: http://nectar.northampton.ac.uk/jisc.html

Start Date: 2007-09-01

End Date: 2009-03-31

Governance: Repositories and preservation advisory group

Contact Name and Role: Miggie Pickton, Project manager

Name of Trawler: John