Project Plan for Digitization

A Structural Manual for Policy Development at the Greater West

Bloomfield Historical Society

Jeff Nash, Sara Sterkenburg, Paul Wentzell

December 13, 2011

Written as a partial requirement of SI 644: Advanced Preservation

University of Michigan, School of Information
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 2
SECTION 1: CONTEXT FOR PROJECT ............................................................................................................... 2
SECTION 1.1: PRESERVATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT FINDINGS ...................................................................................................2
SECTION 1.2: COLLECTION IMPORTANCE AND USES......................................................................................................................4
SECTION 1.3: RISKS AND COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF DIGITIZATION .....................................................................................4
SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 6
SECTION 2.1: PROJECT GOALS..............................................................................................................................................................7
SECTION 2.2: SELECTION.......................................................................................................................................................................9
SECTION 3: PREPARATION FOR DIGITIZATION ......................................................................................... 12
SECTION 3.1: LABOR............................................................................................................................................................................12
SECTION 3.2: EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................................................................................16
SECTION 3.3: TRAINING......................................................................................................................................................................16
SECTION 3.4: LOCATION AND FACILITY.......................................................................................................................................... 16
SECTION 3.5: BUDGET .........................................................................................................................................................................16
SECTION 3.6: TIMELINE ......................................................................................................................................................................17
SECTION 3.7: REFLECTING ON THE VALUE ADDED BY DIGITIZATION.................................................................................... 18
SECTION 4: TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE ........................................................ 18
SECTION 4.1: DIGITAL OBJECT CONTROL AND STANDARDIZATION........................................................................................ 18
Section 4.1.1: Hardware............................................................................................................................................................ 19
Section 4.1.2: Software .............................................................................................................................................................. 20
Section 4.1.3: Image Capture Parameters ........................................................................................................................ 20
Section 4.1.4: Quality Control ................................................................................................................................................. 21
Section 4.1.5: Metadata and Digital Object Description ............................................................................................ 22
SECTION 4.2: DIGITAL OBJECT MANAGEMENT............................................................................................................................. 23
Section 4.2.1: Data Management Personnel.................................................................................................................... 24
Section 4.2.2: Backing-Up Data ............................................................................................................................................. 24
Section 4.2.3: Digital Storage ................................................................................................................................................. 25
Section 4.2.4: Quality Assurance ........................................................................................................................................... 25
Section 4.2.5: Metadata Migration ...................................................................................................................................... 26
Section 4.2.6: Image Management....................................................................................................................................... 27
Section 4.2.7: Managing Collection Scope ........................................................................................................................ 27
SECTION 5: POLICY REEVALUATION ............................................................................................................. 28
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................ 30
APPENDICES......................................................................................................................................................... 32
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................................... 37

1
Executive Summary
After conducting an initial Needs Assessment Survey with the Greater West Bloomfield
Historical Society (GWBHS) earlier this year, we chose to follow up on our
recommendations and develop a secondary document: a detailed project plan that could
aid the society in a collection digitization project. The plan that follows will aim to do two
things: 1.) establish the necessity of in-depth policy development prior to actual
digitization, and 2.) provide recommendations on best-practice metrics that should be
followed to successfully allocate resources to the project (including employees, volunteers
and interns, finances, facilities, possible vendors, and equipment) and create preservation-
quality images that will both provide increased access to the GWBHS collections, and
maintain the intellectual value of the museum’s cultural artifacts for years to come.

In the sections that follow, we will establish reasons for electing to draft a plan for
digitization, discuss goals of the effort (and their alignment with major missions of the
GWBHS at large), and underline the importance of selecting appropriate and in-demand
content for various phases of digitization. Later our discussion will move toward
preparation requirements, technological equipment, metrics necessary for digitizing
consistent and standard images, and how to manage digitized data for the long-term.
Finally, we will detail the importance of frequent reevaluation of digitization policies. Our
hope is that this plan will provide a starting point from which the GWBHS will be able to
begin an effort with the ability to reach new audiences, gain control over its collections, and
provide culturally relevant material to its community for the long-term.

Section 1: Context for Project

Section 1.1: Preservation Needs Assessment Findings

Our initial preservation assessment survey for the Greater West Bloomfield Historical
Society (GWBHS) revealed a fragile environment for the long-term preservation of local
historic artifacts and documents. In our initial assessment, we evaluated the condition of the
building environment for collection storage, the disaster preparedness of the organization,
preservation selection and other policies, and the physical handling of the collections. Our
goal in the assessment was to provide feedback on the overall preservation environment,
and offer suggestions to improve the overall storage and exhibit environments. As a direct
result of this needs assessment survey, and in listening to the museum in its desire to

2
expand digital access, we have decided to draft a project plan for digitization to help the
museum preserve its collections in the face of a fragile preservation environment.

According to our initial assessment, the building environment suffers from many
preservation risks that threaten the longevity of the society’s collections. The main basement
storage area is the most notable risk area, where artifacts including historic tax records are
exposed to insects, moisture and mold, and exposed plumbing. The underground storage
area also raises concern for possible flooding scenarios, especially considering the GWBHS
building sits very near a lake. In the main exhibit area, photographs, documents and other
possible photosensitive materials are subject to prolonged exposure to sunlight through un-
shuttered windows. Temperature levels in both the basement storage and exhibit rooms vary
drastically, and goes unregulated for the most part throughout the year. Additionally, many
artifacts are not cordoned off in the main exhibit areas to prevent accidental damage from
patron handling.

In terms of disaster preparedness, our initial assessment revealed the GWBHS has many
areas to improve. We noticed that GWBHS currently lacks fire alarm systems and
extinguishers throughout the building, creating a risk environment for fire damage. Also, the
GWBHS does not use pallets in the basement storage area consistently, and some artifacts
are stored on the ground, putting them at risk for flood damage. Because the building is left
unattended for long periods of time, many disaster situations may go unnoticed for a period
of time in which it may be too late to rescue important artifacts.

The GWBHS currently has no formal policies for the preservation of its artifacts. Most
documents or artifacts that are deemed important are usually kept under glass (with no
regular maintenance procedure), or are sheathed in some sort of protective covering such as
plastic. Other artifacts are left out in the open, or are stored in the basement with little to no
protection. In fact, the organization regularly employs some of its artifacts—like antique
farming tools—as hands-on props for local history events held at the museum, further
reducing their lifespan. We also discovered the GWBHS has no formal selection procedure
for identifying objects that should be better preserved, which has led to the neglect of
higher-risk artifacts at the museum.

The GWBHS has a philosophy that encourages patron interactivity and education,
sometimes at the expense of preservation of materials. Some items, including photographs
and important documents, are kept away from the reach of the public in glass cases or other
enclosures. Other objects are free to touch. As mentioned before, the museum routinely
uses artifacts as hands-on props during community events. There are no rules for handling
3
at the museum, and no barriers in place to prevent patrons from handling potentially
sensitive artifacts in the exhibit area.

Section 1.2: Collection Importance and Uses

The GWBHS’ mission, as indicated on its web site, is “to celebrate and preserve the local
heritage of the area, through its products, its technology and its people.” Its collections
exhibit much of the Irish immigrant farm culture that spread through the region following
the purchase of the land from a local Native American tribe. The museum still holds the
original land purchase agreement document between the Native Americans and the United
States Government. The document on display in the exhibit room is hand-signed by former
President John Quincy Adams and the leaders of the native tribe, and is a priceless piece of
regional history. Apples and sheep farms thrived in the Greater West Bloomfield area in the
19th century, and settlers copied this apple growing tradition from the Native Americans
who lived in the area. This long-time tradition of apple farming is preserved in some forms
by the museum, which has many farming-related tools and even an apple cider press from
the era. A mural depicting a sheep and a schoolgirl by local artist Roy Gamble adorns one
wall of the museum, a product of the region’s sheep farming roots.

Even the GWBHS building itself is an artifact of Orchard Lake Village, having served as
Orchard Lake Hotel in the mid- to late-1900’s, and then as the Orchard Lake City Hall before
transforming into an area museum. The collections the building holds are varied, ranging in
physical artifact types - farming tools, era clothing, film reels, documents, paintings,
newspaper clippings, maps flags and more.

The museum hosts much of its collection for display in an exhibition room and annex, yet a
considerable amount of the collections are not on public display (including books,
documents, tools, film reels, pictures, tax records, and more), and are stored in a basement
storage area or in the GWBHS office. The museum is concern with the fact that a large
portion of local residents and researchers cannot see its holdings. Thus, the need to digitize
the collection for both preservation and access is crucial to the museum’s patronage and
continued importance. The museum’s express desire to preserve the local heritage of the
Greater West Bloomfield heritage in its artifacts and promote access online led us to draft
this project plan for digitization.

Section 1.3: Risks and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Digitization

4
The purpose of this digitization project is to migrate the physical collections of GWBHS to
digital format for long-term preservation and access. Taking into account the risk-laden
environment at GWBHS as exhibited in the needs assessment survey, there are many factors
that can hinder the progress of our proposed digitization project. Placing priority on a
digitization plan necessarily prohibits the implementation of other—arguably more
pressing—plans like a disaster and danger preparedness plan, or an exhibition environment
maintenance plan. For example, if a flood, fire or theft occurred during the course of the
digitization project and compromised valuable artifacts, this could have drastic
repercussions for the museum that had no disaster preparedness. The digitization would be
interrupted, and both digital and physical artifacts could be compromised or completely
unusable. 1

Digitization does not guarantee the continued lifespan of the physical artifacts housed in the
museum building, nor do the digital object copies convey the exact information of the
physical artifact they document. In fact, digitization may even further diminish the quality
of the collections, as the museum runs the risk of damaging already fragile documents
during handling. These represent just a sample of the considerations that played a role in
the course of developing this digitization plan.

On a different note, in choosing to write a project plan for digitization we had to weigh the
importance of digital technologies and the need to provide access to patrons and
disseminate the cultural history of the region to residents and researchers alike. Currently,
the museum is seldom open to the public, and only a handful of patrons visit the museum
each month. Therefore, the artifacts in the museum are susceptible not only to wear-and-
tear from the storage environment, but just as important, their existence is largely unknown
to the very community they represent. The digitization plan would allow GWBHS to start
crafting a bigger Web presence for their collections using the digital files created from the
project for access uses. While this report will suggest specific file formats for digital artifacts
and access copies, it will not offer suggestions for the hosting of these digital files on the
Web or elsewhere for access. It is expected that the GWBHS will choose its own platform for
hosting digitized files over the Internet, and will be responsible for determining the
rendering of images online, the usability of the site, and any additional considerations that
user access requires.

Another benefit in writing a project plan for digitization is it offers a convenient and
organized way to initiate the process of cataloging the collections at GWBHS. Currently, the
1
Although we will not draft recommendations on those types of policies within this document, the GWBHS should keep other
storage-environment concerns in mind when moving forward with plans for the museum.
5
GWBHS does not have an inventory of its holdings, and there is no consistent catalog
method used to mark artifacts for ownership. Over the course of a complete digitization
outcome - as every object will necessarily be handled and scrutinized - the GWBHS can
implement a system of its preference to label and catalog each of its artifacts. This report
will not highlight a specific method for the labeling or cataloging of physical objects, but will
offer suggestions in terms of the cataloging of digital objects.

Section 2: Project Description

With this project plan, our aim is to clearly articulate the process that a quality, in-depth,
and well thought out digitization effort should follow. We aim to make recommendations on
the types of benchmarks that major policy-development decisions should implement, the
amount of labor and time requirement that a project of this scale will require, and resources,
planning, equipment, and external resources (including potential vendors) that will need to
be solicited. We believe that a fully digitized collection can offer GWBHS patrons
unprecedented access to the museum’s collections while dually fulfilling its mission to
increase access to and knowledge of local community history. Preservation is a necessary
reason for this project to be undertaken. However, it cannot solve or eradicate problems
presented by the conditions of the analog collection: “digitization is not preservation – it is
simply a means of copying original materials. In creating a digital copy, the institution
creates a new resource that will itself require preservation.” 2 In this plan, we will outline
some of the major components of a digitization project that require implementation within a
larger digitization policy, and that will also necessitate funding, additional labor, and several
years of attention. Where external information or resources are valuable, we provide
footnotes and appendices for further information.

For the purposes of clarity, we will refer to four specific types of information individually
(according to the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) 3), and understanding
the difference of each of these will be important as this plan continues.

● Collections (organized groups of objects)

● Objects (digital materials)
● Metadata (information about objects and collections)
● Initiatives (programs or projects to create and manage collections)

2
Preservation and Selection for Digitization leaflet (from the Northeast Document Conservation Center)
http://www.nedcc.org/resources/leaflets/6Reformatting/06PreservationAndSelection.php
3
National Information Standards Organization, specified information types: http://framework.niso.org/node/7
6
In this section we will lay out a general description of how the GWBHS can carry out a
digitization project that follows best-practice methodology. In the two subsections that
follow, we will discuss the goals of the digitization effort and how the goals address major
missions of the GWBHS museum, and then we will discuss procedures surrounding selecting
the most appropriate information for digitization in a series of phases.

Section 2.1: Project Goals

In building from our Preservation Needs Assessment to focus intently on a single project
plan for the GWBHS, we recognized their clearly articulated desire for a more
comprehensive digital collection, and parallel concern for increasing the access and
awareness of the museum’s historical collections.

Distinct reasoning to support the choice of a digital collection for improving collections
accessibility is evident through the GWBHS’ entirely volunteer-based culture. With a small
staff and extremely limited visiting hours, very little accessibility has been available to the
user community to date. Further, the GWBHS staff seemed particularly interested in and
motivated by the possibility of online accessibility to collections, and we believe this would
promote the improvement of major museum weaknesses that indirectly relate to
accessibility. Resolving some of these weaknesses are direct goals of the project, and they
include:

● Gaining control over the collection

As was mentioned in the previous section on Context for the Project, the GWBHS
collection has not been cataloged. This means that there is no single directory where
information about a particular object can be gleaned or recorded. This puts items at
high-risk for value-loss: volunteer staff that knows the items best could move, or
cease their involvement with the GWBHS before that information is preserved.
Further, without full collection documentation, there can be no complete
understanding of the relationship between particular items or sub-collections,
preventing the potential for new context to be seen or utilized by users. We believe
that the digitization effort will force cataloging to be implemented, which we hope
will subsequently promote follow-through for the long-term care of digital objects.

● Tracking the condition of physical museum artifacts

7
 Another problem emanating from the absence of a full collection catalog is that no
benchmarks are currently in place to compare past condition of artifacts to their
condition today. Thus, the deterioration or changing state of items cannot be
determined. During the cataloging process, a precursor to digitization, a detailed
description of the physical condition of each item should be included within a
database. As a result, the cataloging will benefit increased access through digitization,
and will provide for improved analog collections.

● Expand user audience through improved access to collections

The GWBHS collections are underutilized in their current environment. With the
museum facility open only four hours per month, even the most avid of users are
limited in their access to the collections. Online storage of materials will promote
use, circulation, and will offer users outside of the West Bloomfield area a chance to
view and utilize the collections remotely. The online environment can promote the
amount of feedback the museum receives from users by introducing feedback tools or
surveys within the interface, so that the GWBHS can better understand and serve the
needs and demands of their user community.

● Increase access without added burden to volunteer staff

With the expansion of the GWBHS website and museum content, more access could
be delivered without the requirement of additional open museum hours or further
time commitments from the thinly-spread volunteer staff.

● Utilize the help of area-universities for growth and expertise

Interns and summer student hires can afford the GWBHS appropriate help at little to
no cost. Further, the external word of mouth and news that such opportunities can
bring to the museum have the potential to increase awareness (and possibly funding)
for the GWBHS and its future efforts.

● Recording metrics on how long the digitization of particular items should take
The Digitization Manager or Assistant Manager (positions described in Section 3:
labor) should make sure that the time required for each aspect of the digitization
process (including training, cataloging, arrangement of artifacts, actual digitization,
description input within software, etc.) is recorded, so that an average or expected
amount of time for a given phase can be worked into the expected timeline of the
project, and increasingly curated as the process continues. This type of information
can help the organization understand the timeline it requires, but also help other
similar societies identify the requirements of digitization, keep interns and volunteers
8
 on track by expressing the average amount of time that a given task should require,
and better visualize the amount of work that can be accomplished (within one hour,
one week, and one month, respectively). In the case that a time crunch requires more
end product to be processed faster, the GWBHS will have a clear concept of how
much can be accomplished with the hiring of even one additional individual.

● Carefully digitizing, describing, and arranging digital content for the long-term
Our initial Needs Assessment Survey outlined a lot of the problems with the GWBHS’
physical storage space, building size and capabilities, and the obstacles it holds for
the long-term preservation of physical artifacts. Creating digital representations of
these items will not preserve them in the long-term, but it will allow one form of the
data, at a minimum, to survive. Additionally, it could raise awareness that later could
bring in funding with the potential to start an added initiative for preserving physical
collections. The long-term accessibility and preservation of the digital objects,
however, will provide unhindered remote access to a wider base of users, fulfilling
one of the main missions of the GWBHS.

Goals are essential to the continued motivation for this project, but are also necessary to
ensure that the effort solves a clear problem. In order to stay organized and be sure that
goals are articulated throughout the entire digitization process, the GWBHS will need to
develop structured policies for several aspects of the project. A policy for digitization should
include benchmarks for measuring and preparing for quality assurance and technical
standards, evolving audience needs, increased web traffic, and an appropriate timeline for
accomplishing the project. Additionally, making these goals and data available to users will
benefit the GWBHS. Highly user-oriented organizations work to maintain transparency 4
wherever possible, and the GWBHS should strive for similar visibility. If goals, needs, and
obstacles are articulated clearly throughout the process, users will be aware of progress, and
potential volunteers and donors will understand the specific needs in the event that they
have the means to help.

Section 2.2: Selection

4
The Trusted Repositories Audit Certification (TRAC) process explains the definition of transparency in the digital environment as:
“a repository that exposes its design, specifications, practices, policies, and procedures for risk analysis” The document further
asserts that...”digital repositories must be transparent in all practices as they relate to preservation capabilities or assertions made
about trusted, long-term management of digital materials.” http://www.crl.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/pages/trac_0.pdf

9
The GWBHS has hundreds, perhaps thousands of items and artifacts between its exhibition
space and storage collections. Knowing that these items are not cataloged or processed with
unique identifiers is problematic when trying to assess both 1.) the volume of data
necessitating digitization and 2.) the form (manuscript, book, farming equipment, clothing,
etc.) of each object, because different 3D materials require varying digitization equipment.
Thus, not every museum artifact can be digitized in one fell swoop, or over the same period
of time - the work must be done in phases. We recommend that the GWBHS prioritize
different types of items for digitization, grouping like-items together. Because we do not
know the demands of users, or the community’s most pressing needs, we find it essential
that the volunteer staff that interacts with the content and users most frequently form a
committee to discuss selection priorities.

The first phase requires choosing a specific type of museum resource for cataloging,
digitization, and addition to the online repository. To get started, our suggestion would be
to begin Phase I with 2D materials (i.e. photographs, papers, or manuscripts) for two
reasons: 1.) 2D digitization equipment is more commonplace, cheaper to use and rent; 2.)
metadata description can be based on items already in the online repository, requiring less
research and process upfront to begin the initiative. After 2D documentation, the GWBHS
will need to determine the next series of items to be digitized. We hope that the GWBHS
uses the potential of the online atmosphere to solicit feedback and requests from patrons so
that some metrics can be utilized to measure the demands of users and the uses that the
first phase materials have allowed. Such statistics (in addition to budget allotments) will
help to facilitate a conversation and decision for successive phases of artifact digitization.

Selection is of utmost importance, but it is also imperative to state that a policy should
always back every digitization phase: a clearly selected type of content should be chosen,
and the reasoning for its selection should fully support the goals articulated by the project.
Should need, goals, funding, or external circumstances shift, the policy should be
reevaluated before moving forward. Each phase should be carried out completely (full
digitization) before beginning with new content for a successive digitization phase. This
way, at least a portion of the collection can be made highly accessible via the intranet, rather
than multiple phases being partially initiated; this is the easiest way to streamline the
process and deliver content to users at a faster rate.

The aforementioned components should play key roles in the selection process, but other
discussions warrant attention as well, depending on whether they are applicable to the
digitization of a particular phase:

10
● Intellectual property rights and copyright concerns
In our interviews with the GWBHS, copyright seemed to be of very little, if any
concern to the repository. Most items within the museum have been donated.
Beyond that, most pre-date the current copyright benchmark. Those certainties are
wonderful for the GWBHS, but we would like to stress the importance of making sure
that documentation of donation, clear ownership, and absolute copyright possession
lie with the GWBHS before content is posted to the intranet. Copyright infringement
is a serious issue, and could create a lawsuit that puts the entire society at risk. If any
doubt surrounds an object’s copyright standing, it is better to err on the side of
conservatism, and seek an external opinion, ask for licensed approval from the
copyright holder to make the data available online, or elect not to digitally publish
the item for the time being.

Information should also be provided to users about the copyright status

(distinguishing between items whose copyright is owned by GWBHS, which items
have fallen out of copyright and into the public domain, and which are being
licensed). It is important to note the extent to which users can access, download,
retrieve, or pay for digital copies of information. Preferred citations should be made
available for patron use in the online environment.

● Item condition and diversity

Many of the artifacts, as listed above, greatly vary. Items can come in different sizes,
ages, materials, qualities, and value to the community. Such variety is an asset to the
collection, but should also be kept in mind throughout the process. Different
equipment, management, and long-term maintenance apply to each unique form. It
is important to be responsible when making selections, and to choose items whose
full digitization can be funded. Further, copyright and life span can vary as well. Part
of the attention given to selecting the next phase of items for digitization should
surround which items necessitate digitization. Need can be driven by users, but it can
also be driven by deteriorating item condition. In the case that the physical
environment cannot sustain preservation, a digital representation of an item is better
than total loss. High consideration should be placed on items with reasonable risk for
loss, so as to save what is left of their existence before total historical dissolution.

● Conservation
Because the digitization effort will take place simultaneously with cataloging, it is
possible that the condition of some items will necessitate conservation work, or that
items are determined to be too fragile for digitization. In these cases, measures
11
 should be taken to care for the needs of those items in addition to continuing the
digitization process, or to donate those items to repositories and institutions that can
conserve or care for them in the long-term. In the event that massively deteriorated
items are discovered during the reorganizing and cataloging process, the needs of the
collection could necessitate halting the digitization process. It is important to
develop these types of scenarios within the digitization policy document, and is
valuable to consider their possibility at early stages of policy development.

Section 3: Preparation for Digitization

Before digitization can begin, a working policy needs to be developed by a specified team of
GWBHS volunteers, and drafted by a specified deadline. After a draft has been created, the
policy should be presented to the GWBHS board, and edited/amended until it has been
accepted and approved by the board at large.

In outlining a comprehensive policy to include specific measurement metrics and

requirements of the Digitization effort, several work-related components need to be
included and drawn out in as much detail as possible. For example policies off of which the
GWBHS should draw to develop its own working document, we recommend the National
Library of Australia’s digitization policy,5 the NINCH Guide to Good Practice in the Digital
Representation and Management of Cultural Heritage Documents, 6 Technical Guidelines for
Digitizing Cultural Heritage Materials, 7 and East Carolina University’s Joyner Library Policy
Manual.8 To help develop some of the areas where cost, time, attention, and policy should
be allocated; we have included a series of sub-sections below. Each will include a description
and any findings or recommendations on the types of considerations that should be made by
the GWBHS in policy creation. The subsections will be ordered as follows: labor, equipment,
training, location and facility, budget, and timeline.

Section 3.1: Labor

One of the largest allocations for this project will be labor. The GWBHS needs to determine
who will be responsible for leading this project, who will help as support staff, whether or
not outsourcing work to vendors is a good option, what the costs for each of those avenues

5
National Library of Australia: Digitization Policy document: http://www.nla.gov.au/policy/digitisation.html
6
NINCH Guide to Good Practice: http://www.nyu.edu/its/humanities/ninchguide/
7
Technical Guidelines for Digitizing Cultural Heritage Materials: http://www.digitizationguidelines.gov/guidelines/digitize-
technical.html
8
East Carolina University’s Joyner Library Policy Manual: http://digital.lib.ecu.edu/info/DigitalCDP.pdf
12
will be to the organization, and what prioritizing digitization will mean for the development
of other aspects of the GWBHS museum.

Included in labor duties will be the cataloging and reorganization of artifacts, assessing their
condition and value to the user community, and prioritizing their digitization within a
particular phase. After this will come cleaning the artifacts (as necessary) and digitizing of
each. Evaluating external vendors to digitize three-dimensional artifacts, and developing
training session on any purchased equipment to use in-house will also be necessary. As a
further concern, the GWBHS will need to consider the costs of persons in comparison to the
budget allocated to this project. If vendors are hired, for how long will the museum (and
how long can it) expect to afford the added help? Maximums should be set for each of these
factors within the budget policy, and those should be adhered to strictly. Where vendors
and experienced corporations cannot be afforded, the museum should think about hiring
graduate-student interns from programs that offer training in-line with the needs of the
GWBHS. For a closer description of recommended personnel for the digitization project, see
the following outline:

● Digitization Manager - It is extremely important that someone with a developed

understanding of the GWBHS collections, and an investment in their preservation be
designated as a manager for this project. Based on our understanding of the
personnel at GWBHS, we believe it is also important that someone with a
technological background would add helpful experience to the process. For these
reasons, we see Buzz Brown or Bill McIsaac as natural candidates. We expect this
position to require about 20% full-time-equivalency (FTE) hours (or around 5-8 hours
per week). This person will be responsible for overseeing all other personnel and
workers on the digitization effort. Some portions of the process may require more
intensive work hours, while others time frames may be lighter. As this person is
directly responsible for all digitization employees, they should also have a direct hand
in hiring the team, interns, and volunteers selected for the project. As a last
recommended requirement, the Digitization Manager should schedule regular
meetings (likely monthly) with all workers associated with the project, so that open
communication, goals, and progress with the project are facilitated and known by all
associated.

● Assistant Digitization Manager - Because our timeline (see subsection on Timeline for
more detail) expects this process to require several years before total completion, we
foresee some likelihood that the designated Digitization Manager will not be able to
oversee the entire process. If something happens to the project manager, (i.e. injury,
13
 family-related emergencies, or moving from the area), a secondary individual with
appropriate institutional knowledge of the project should be in place for continuing
progression with digitization. In the situation that a back-up manager takes over full
management responsibilities, a new Assistant Manager should be appointed. This
person should work closely with the Digitization Manager and carry extensive
responsibilities over the project. They should be familiar with all supervisory staff and
able to provide necessary training sessions as needed. This position will also require
approximately 20% FTE (5-8 hours per week).

● Interns - Experienced students in appropriate fields of study are great resources for
inexpensive, motivated help, and will be vital to the digitization project. Given that
much of the workforce at the GWBHS is volunteer-based, having interns can drive
progress and maintain a focus on the long-term goals of the society. We have
suggested that the GWBHS offer full-time, summer semester internships that reflect
the study schedule of local university programs. Within the digitization policy, the
GWBHS should spell out specifically desired skills and talents in a job description for
interns. We have provided suggested position descriptions for internships within
Appendix A. Interns hired for summer months should be expected to work 50-100%
FTE (20-40 hours per week). Possible fall or winter semester interns could work
anywhere from 25-50% FTE (10-20 hours per week). Some of this time should be
under the supervision of the Digitization Manager or Assistant Manager, but after
interns receive training and an introduction into the GWBHS, they should be able to
work at an adequate pace with museum materials on their own.

● Volunteers - Low cost help can be extremely helpful, as was discussed in the bullet-
point on interns (above), but because volunteers are not guaranteed to have the same
valuable skills as students learning to become professionals in the preservation field,
some level of GWBHS-based motivation and task delegation must be offered to
assure that volunteers are taking on appropriate and helpful tasks for the project, and
are consistently working on them. Expectations for volunteers, and any requirements
for their training and skill-level should be expressed within the digitization policy.
Volunteers should not be required to work a particular amount of hours per week,
but a minimum of 10 hours per month should be required, or else a volunteer could
lose scope and familiarity with the digitization project, and no longer be able to carry
out valuable tasks for the GWBHS. Volunteers should work during hours when either
managers or interns are also scheduled, and fill out a time sheet (approved by a
manager) upon each visit, so that the GWBHS can keep a record of the amount of
hours required by the digitization process. Volunteers should register with the
14
 GWBHS in an official document (that should be provided within the digitization
policy) to comply with insurance and non-profit requirements.

● Vendors - We believe that external vendors will become a realistic option to be hired
by the GWBHS at some level of the digitization process - likely when moving to the
digitization of 3D materials. Vendors will require a list of expectations and
requirements for technical specifications (see sections 4.1-4.2 for more information), a
timeline for completion, and the payment they will receive for their services. The
GWBHS should look at potential vendors well ahead of the time when vendors are
necessary to the process.

Depending on the type of artifacts being digitized in the next phase, specific
equipment, software, or procedures might be required (i.e. large or oversize artifacts
have different needs than silver-gelatin prints), and some vendors specialize in
digitizing particular content (which could be beneficial for dealing with various over-
size objects within the GWBHS collection that would be otherwise very difficult to
digitize in-house). The GWBHS should be aware of which types of vendors will be
suitable based on the needs of upcoming digitization phases. Because vendors are
proprietary, and interested in the business end of partnerships with institutions in
need of digitization, it will be more expensive to have them digitize content than to
the digitization internally. A vendor will, however, be able to deliver digitized content
much more quickly than the volunteer-staff of the GWBHS would be capable of.

If vendors are elected for digitization, the GWBHS should take care to consider its
needs and relay those to the vendor in a timely manner. Otherwise, the vendor might
not understand those needs, or fail to keep them in mind during their work. Any
requirements, budget allowances, or expectations for vendors ( as well as the timeline
they can be afforded) should be explicitly detailed within the digitization policy.

It can be difficult to find digitization vendors due to the interdisciplinary nature of

their work: they can be involved primarily in publishing, copying, records
management, or even be a cultural institution themselves. For example, Michigan
State University Library’s Digital and Multimedia Center serves the student body and
digitizes multiple types of objects for inter-university divisions, but also operates an
external business.

Getting involved in cultural institutions and organizations for museums or archives

will open the GWBHS up to many vendors that often try to advertise at conferences.
15
 Jill Hurst-Wahl, a field-professional, wrote a relevant blog post about various
digitization vendors who were present at the Special Library Association’s annual
meeting. 9

Section 3.2: Equipment

Software programs (for scanning/capture, reformatting, and metadata tagging), and
hardware (a scanner; computer capable of handling the software, digital files, back-up hard
drives) need to be purchased and closely maintained over time. Because of the quick
procession of technological developments, any purchases are likely to become obsolete very
quickly, so keeping an eye out for evolving systems and software will be important.
Scanners, gloves for handling items, archival boxes for storing and housing items after their
digitization, and other items unaccounted for in this project plan should be made available
as needed.

Section 3.3: Training

As further criterion for consideration, the GWBHS should assess how and at what cost
training should be provided for employees on using the software and hardware systems,
cataloging and describing the digital objects, choosing and learning metadata schemas for
the description, and assessing the condition of each item so that fragile items can be flagged
for conservation or higher-level attention.

Labor concerns are a major aspect of this project, and so, requirements and skills should be
as well. Student hires or volunteers can (and should) be solicited according to their fit with
the organization, but volunteers should be trained, and a project manager should be
selected to oversee work flow, make decisions when unexpected scenarios arise, and take
care of future training: either administering training on his/her own, or selecting (or hiring)
appropriate training facilitators.

Section 3.4: Location and Facility

It is important to also think about a location for digitization and project work. The GWBHS
does not have extra room in-house for a digitization project of this scale. Renting another
facility may be an option, but vendors hired to digitize could also be attractive if outside
working spaces are difficult to locate for the time-span required.

Section 3.5: Budget

9
URL link to Jill Hurst-Wahl’s blog post: http://hurstassociates.blogspot.com/2007/06/digitization-vendors-at-sla-
conference_10.html
16
Given that much of the services are non-paid or volunteer-based, most of the monetary
expenditures will be allocated toward obtaining hardware and software (discussed in Section
4). A lot of the budget will require measurement in terms of time (and FTE) rather than
strict finances. An itemized budget (Microsoft Excel spreadsheet) is provided with expected
costs within Appendix B of this document.

Section 3.6: Timeline

Although the preparation, policy drafting, selection process, and goal setting aspects of the
project are a lot of work, they are requisite for a successful initiative. In moving forward with
digitization, it is important to be aware of what is realistic in setting up a timeline. The small
staff and very few open hours of the GWBHS museum means that first digitization phase of
the project may take longer than desired. Still, an appropriate goal should be set for overall
phase I completion, and smaller benchmarks for more finite components should be fit
within that timeline too. We have loose constructions for setting benchmarks for the short,
medium, and long-term, and those should be amended as fits the GWBHS culture and
abilities:

● Short-term (1-2 years out): Includes goal setting, policy drafting, equipment
allocation, vendor analysis, selection, and Phase I of digitization.

● Medium-term (2-3 years out): Once Phase I of digitization has been completed, the
“medium-term” will begin, and should include a reasonable amount of time to reflect
on the process, consider the value-added by digitization, analyze any data or
feedback garnered from users, and re-evaluate the appropriateness and fit of
previously constructed policies. Once appropriate changes have been made, and the
next round of items are chosen for selection, Phase II of digitization should be carried
out to completion.

● Long-term (beyond 3-4 years): Additional evaluation periods and successive

digitization phases, to be completed as budget, resources, labor, and time can be
spared.

A visual timeline is provided in Appendix C with a recommended progression of events for

the digitization effort. We carefully considered available staff at the GWBHS during its
development, and expect the policy drafting and approval alone to take around six months.
We also tried to align the effort with summer months for the purposes of hired interns. In

17
crafting a digitization policy, we recommend that the GWBHS consider our suggestions, but
ultimately amend any aspects of this project plan to fit realistic expectations for its own
needs.

Section 3.7: Reflecting on the Value Added by Digitization

When the GWBHS has fully drafted a full-scale digitization policy, had it approved by the
board, and begun and completed the digitization of Phase I, the society should reflect back
upon the processes undergone. The strengths, weaknesses, problems, unforeseen
circumstances, and any feedback gleaned during Phase I should be discussed, and added as
metrics for going forward with additional digitization phases. Further, before moving along
with additional phases, all policy documentation should be reevaluated for its relevancy.
Any changes or divergences from the original policy should be added and recorded, and the
policy should be amended to reflect the needs required by digitization that have been
learned since the original policy development. The GWBHS board should approve this—and
any successive—revised policies.

We also recommend that a survey be provided for users to fill out if they utilize the digital
holdings. Use analytics should be recorded once digital data is made available to users, and
the amount of users should be tracked as they are visiting the site. What will be of particular
interest (and value) are the types of items that users are most frequently visiting. This type
of data may provide the key to which materials are in the highest demand by the user
community, and similar non-digitized materials should be flagged with a higher value for
digitization for future phases.

Section 4: Technical Standards and Quality Assurance

Section 4.1: Digital Object Control and Standardization

In constructing the parameters for digitization, it is important to consider that the digital
object copy is a separate artifact from the physical object it describes. Therefore, no digital
copy will entirely capture the information contained in the original. It remains important,
however, to preserve as much information about the original object in its digital record,
through the appending of precise metadata for later reference. Additionally, adhering to best
practices in file reformatting, color management and reproduction, workflow, and metadata
tagging is crucial to describing the integrity and provenance of the original artifact object.
For the purposes of our project, we will recommend preserving two copies of the digital
object - one as a master copy and another as an access copy for patron use.
18
In our project plan, digitization will occur in stages, where the first series of stages will
include the scanning of documents, images (prints and negatives), or other two-dimensional
objects, and the second series of phases will include the digitization of larger two-
dimensional objects and even three-dimensional objects through high-resolution
photography. For the second series, GWBHS will likely need to seek a vendor to digitize
larger objects. Any vendor contracted for digitization should maintain the same standards
outlined throughout this report (specifically Section 4). In recommending software and
hardware for purposes of digitization in the first stage, GWBHS should require a strict
adherence to standards set by the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration in
terms of spatial resolution (dpi, pixel width and height), tonal resolution/color and bit
depth, and file formats. 10

Section 4.1.1: Hardware

For purposes of processing two-dimensional objects, the GWBHS will need to obtain a
computer and monitor capable of efficiently executing Adobe Photoshop software, Epson
scanning software, and monitor calibration software (for accurate color reproductions), as
these are the three main software we will recommend for basic handling of image/document
capture, quality control, reformatting, and metadata tagging. The most demanding of these
software programs is Adobe Photoshop CS5 (see Appendix D for system requirements). The
display monitor should have manual color adjustment controls capable of accurately
reproducing color temperature, saturation, and hue of the digital capture. The monitor
should meet Adobe Photoshop’s minimum recommendations for display resolution at
1280x800 pixels. Based on current pricing trends, our estimate for a minimum specification
desktop computer and monitor package is estimated to cost $700.

For scanning, we recommend that the GWBHS purchase an Epson V750-M scanner11
(approximately $850), which - according to its specifications - is capable of reproducing the
necessary tonal resolution, spatial resolution, and color space and depth required by the U.S.
National Archives and Records Administration. We have chosen this scanner based on its
ubiquitous use for professional applications, high product reviews, and high-quality
construction that will make creating professional scans with minimal need for software
correction. Keeping in mind that the scans will create very large TIFF output files, it is
pertinent that the GWBHS make sure their storage and back-up hard drives (at least two)

10
Peterson, Kit A. “Digital Master Images: Sample Technical Specifications for Photograph Collections”
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/tp/DgtlMastersSamplSpecsSelctdRcmndFinal7_2004.pdf
11
Epson Perfection V700 Photo/V 750-M Pro: http://www.epson.com/cmc_upload/0/000/142/238/V700_V750_InfoSheetR1.pdf
19
are sufficiently large enough (at least 1 terabyte recommended) to hold as many master
images and access copies as necessary.

Section 4.1.2: Software

The three types of software we will recommend for digitization include Adobe Photoshop
(latest version), Epson scanning software, and the Datacolor Spyder 3 Pro software (or
similar monitor calibration software). A license of Adobe Photoshop can be purchased from
authorized non-profit Adobe retailers for around $300. Adobe Photoshop uses the Extensible
Metadata Platform (XMP), which incorporates fields from the Dublin Core Metadata
schema. Taking into the consideration the technical background of the staff at GWBHS, we
recommend using Photoshop’s file explorer to tag images using the XMP metadata schema
dialog boxes. The XMP schema can later be exported directly to Dublin Core, either via
Photoshop or another XMP compatible software. Adobe Photoshop also delivers the tools
necessary to reformat the master TIFF scans to JPEG for creating access copies, as well as
edit the color parameters of the image for quality control.

The Epson scanning software comes pre-packaged with the Epson V750-M scanner, and can
be used to capture objects in color or grayscale, at a variety of resolutions. While scanning,
the GWBHS should consult the Digital Master Images chart compiled by Kit A. Peterson12 to
ensure that all recommended digital master image parameters are dialed into the capture
interface. The final recommendation is monitor calibration software. One of the industry’s
leading software for monitor calibration is the Datacolor Spyder 3 ($175 retail), which is
capable of accurately reproducing the color of a digital image object by measuring the
output of the monitor. This software should be run on the monitor at every scanning session
to provide the most accurate rendition of colors of the scanned master copy for the human
eye. In combination with the scanning software and the professional scanner, the calibration
software will help reduce color rendition disparities between the physical artifact and its
corresponding master digital image.

Section 4.1.3: Image Capture Parameters

The digital master copy for preservation should be submitted and preserved in the Tagged
Image File Format (TIFF). The Online Archive of California and Harvard University
Libraries, in addition to the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration currently
use the TIFF 6.0 (latest) format for long-term preservation of digital images in their
repositories, and so we have also chosen to standardize on this uncompressed format. For
photographs and other non-transparencies, we recommend master TIFF files should
12
“Digital Master Images - Sample Technical Specifications for Photograph Collections.” Library of Congress:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/tp/DgtlMastersSamplSpecsSelctdRcmndFinal7_2004.pdf
20
conform to minimum 300 dots-per-inch (dpi) resolution (maximum 400 dpi), maximizing
legibility of the image while also remaining storage-efficient. 13 14 Pixel width and height for
capture is also calculated using the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
standards. 15 While Harvard University Libraries note that the compressed JPEG 2000 format
is sometimes used as an acceptable format for preservation due to its more economical file
sizes (and therefore, ability to store), our model will only recommend TIFF images for the
master copy.

In addition to the master copy, an access copy should be created directly from the master
TIFF file. For the sake of ease of use for Web publication, we recommend the GWBHS create
a compressed access copy in the JPEG container. The images should be compressed enough
to remain quickly render-able in a Web environment, but should retain the 300 dpi
resolution parameters of the master copy. Ideally, the final size of the access image will
remain at about a megabyte in file size, but not much larger. This file will be saved alongside
the master copy, and should reflect its version (i.e. JPEG) within the naming convention
used for storage search and retrieval. The U.S. Department of Cultural Resources provides a
valuable best practices document 16 that can offer suggestions for GWBHS in crafting their
own naming convention procedures for file storage.

Color images should be scanned in using 24-bit Red-Green-Blue (RGB) color space, creating
8-bit depth for each color channel. Black and white images or documents should be scanned
at 8-bit grayscale. It is recommended that images are scanned without auto-correction filters
so that color, brightness, contrast, and other values can be accurately corrected by an
experienced intern using advanced tools in Adobe Photoshop. However, experimentation
with scanner settings and preset values may be necessary at first operation to ensure
efficient workflow by reducing the amount (or scope) of post-capture editing. One primary
advantage to using the monitor calibration software is to enable faster editing by allowing
the editor to see color discrepancies caused at capture.

Section 4.1.4: Quality Control

In terms of quality control, effort should be taken to accurately monitor color post-capture.
The reason we have suggested the Epson scanner is for its highly reputed attention to color
accuracy. The scanner uses a very specific light source that is trained (via software) to
13
Ibid.
14
“Manuscript Digitization Demonstration Project.” 5. Preservation-quality Images: Types and Resolution. Library of Congress:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pictel/mddp305.htm
15
“Digital Master Images - Sample Technical Specifications for Photograph Collections.” Library of Congress:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/tp/DgtlMastersSamplSpecsSelctdRcmndFinal7_2004.pdf
16
"Best Practices for File Naming." N. Carolina Dept. of Cultural Resources:
http://www.records.ncdcr.gov/erecords/filenaming_20080508_final.pdf
21
accurately render the color of the objects. Additionally, with the aid of monitor calibration
software and Adobe Photoshop post-processing tools, the GWBHS can correct for color
imbalances post-capture. This type of post-capture quality control requires expert attention,
and should require an intern or vendor with advanced knowledge of color space editing via
Adobe Photoshop software.

Another important consideration is the value of investing in a file validation software

solution that periodically checks the integrity of files. Such a tool should run after every
backup to ensure a successful backup of files, and that no data was corrupted or lost during
the transfer. One of the reasons we do not recommend a cloud option for file backup is
because file integrity cannot be ascertained by GWBHS on a consistent basis within the
cloud.

Section 4.1.5: Metadata and Digital Object Description

The registration of scanned object metadata should be completed using the XMP schema
developed by Adobe. Using Adobe Photoshop, GWBHS can input specific descriptive
metadata for each of the digital objects using the File Browser and the XMP dialog boxes. 17
The XMP schema included all the required fields contained in the Dublin Core metadata
schema, and can be exported to Dublin Core (and theoretically, many other XML schemas)
using Photoshop or other XMP-compatible software. In addition to the XMP schema, EXIF
data - image data created at capture including date, time, exposure and other data - can also
be accessed using Adobe Photoshop.

The types of descriptive metadata we recommend GWBHS input post-capture follow

directly from the U.S. Library of Congress document entitled Common and Useful
Information Elements for Cataloging Pictorial Materials. 18 This document is especially useful
as a model for the GWBHS because it includes item-level and collection-level examples of
actual authored metadata for a collection. This metadata guide should be used for item-level
descriptions within the XMP fields of the Adobe Photoshop software. In addition to the
types of metadata outlined in the Library of Congress’ document, we also recommend that
the GWBHS pay close attention to the condition of the physical artifacts, and mark a
detailed description of the condition in the “General Notes” (or equivalent) metadata field.

As we mentioned briefly before, digitizing the artifacts at the museum also gives GWBHS
the opportunity to properly catalog its holdings. During metadata tagging, each item should

17
"About Metadata." Adobe: http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/about_metadata.pdf
18
“Common and Useful Information Elements for Cataloging Pictorial Materials.” Library of Congress:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/tp/Common%20Information%20Elements.pdf
22
be assigned a unique catalog number, which can then be saved in the “Acquisition and
Appraisal” (or nearest equivalent) metadata field. This catalog information should also be
kept in a separate spreadsheet to accompany the physical collections separate of the digital
collections.

Section 4.2: Digital Object Management

The previous section (4.1: Digital Object Control & Standardization) detailed the importance
of robust metadata description, and image standards, and display consistency for end-users
among other control mechanisms. These are essential for a well-crafted digitization policy
and successful endeavor, however, their long-term preservation can only be guaranteed
through efforts taken to promote and care for sustainability beyond the moment of digital
capture and manipulation for first use.

The National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP) at the
Library of Congress developed a seven-point analysis schema 19 to determine what factors
need to be considered in order to manage digital objects’ waning longevity. These seven
points will be listed below, and will be followed by a paragraph-form assessment of long
term needs necessitated by the digital image metrics recommended in Section 4.1 of this
plan.

1. Disclosure - the extent to which complete details and resources for technical integrity
validation both 1.) exist and 2.) can be accessed by the individuals responsible for the
creation and management of digital content.
2. Adoption - the level to which a given format is already being utilized by any of:
creators, distributors, or other consumers.
3. Transparency - the degree to which the digital image is viewable by the user without
manipulation or advanced tools, and is readable with minimal technological aid.
4. Self-Documentation - Self-documenting digital objects will be easier to sustain over
time and less vulnerable to disaster than data objects stored separately from their
metadata, which is required to render the data or understand an object’s context.
5. External Dependencies - rely on specific hardware, operating systems, or software for
using or displaying digital objects, in addition to expected complexities associated
with dealing with varying dependencies in technical environments.

19
“Sustainability of Digital Formats: Planning for Library of Congress Collections.” National Digital Information Infrastructure and
Preservation Program (NDIIPP). http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/sustain/sustain.shtml

23
 6. Impact of Patents - their ability to sustain (or destroy) the value of digital objects over
time is unknown and difficult to assess as of yet.
7. Technical Protection Mechanisms - should be put in place to guarantee digital content
over time and provide service to users and relevant communities. It is expected that
beyond digitization, the staff, finances, and attention also get put toward migrating
(or replicating) content on new media when older versions are determined to be
obsolete.

With sustainability as a requirement for preservation, it is just as important for the GWBHS
to allocate attention, personnel, funding, and potential help for digital efforts in the same
way that the policy planning procedures will require help.

Section 4.2.1: Data Management Personnel

Specifically, a part-time intern (whose experience level meets the needs of the GWBHS file
creation and management policies) should stand to carry out the analysis and upkeep of
evolving image standards so that digitized collections at the GWBHS stay in touch and up to
date with nationally recognized standards. The Digitization Manager should oversee all
major decisions that fall within the expected scope, and should be prepared to handle
decisions that fall outside of it (any unforeseen circumstances). The Assistant Manager,
however, should also be held responsible for making these types of decisions in the event
that the primary manager is unavailable.

Section 4.2.2: Backing-Up Data

Once a policy and personnel have been allocated to the effort and digitization has begun,
the implementation of long-term data management metrics must be considered even at the
first steps of the process. All added digital content should be backed-up with an
appropriately sized external hard-drive (see Section 4.1 for suggested hardware and software
specifications) large-enough to keep digital object metadata and images (master and access
copies) for the entire collection (including all expected phases of digitization).

At least two full data back-ups should exist. One should be kept on-site, updated daily, and
used as necessary. A second back up should be kept off-site, so that in the event that an
emergency or disaster occurs within the museum, a preserved copy of collections content
will still exist. Similar to the on-site back up, the secondary should also save collection data
at any time when content is added. However, outside of regular check-ups (to see that the
hard-drive is fully operational), the secondary back up should act as the preservation copy of
the museum’s digital collections: not to be touched, removed, or accessed except in
emergency situations.
24
Section 4.2.3: Digital Storage
To keep the information retrieval process as consistent and fluid as the rest of the effort,
naming conventions consistent with the images and their description should be
implemented within the computer mainframe storage and back-up storage environments as
well. 20 This is important for several reasons. First, it will reduce any potential confusion if
files are warped or lost in one system, but saved in another: a user or staff member can much
more easily identify information whose tags and names they recognize from previous
experience. Further, a basic outline and intellectual structure surrounding naming
conventions in operation within the system should be articulated within a word processing
document (i.e. Microsoft Word) and implemented as a part of the digitization policy: to
preserve the digitization process itself, but also for the purposes of passing the framework
forward to future workers, interns, and GWBHS volunteers.

Section 4.2.4: Quality Assurance

Although a software solution to the cataloging and online-access problem may be the best
option today, stronger possibilities could become available in the future and warrant
changes. As these technologies develop, not only will the existing systems become obsolete,
but descriptive standards will also require transformation. It is essential that the GWBHS
align its goals to keeping up with system and network developments so that safety, security,
and digital object preservation can all be maintained for users in years to come (more
information on necessary evaluation metrics will be discussed in the section that follows).

Purchasing software and hardware on a yearly basis is unnecessary (and likely out of
budget), but the GWBHS should reevaluate the needs and current standards for digital
objects every one to two years. It is our belief that eventually, software systems will be
developed to structure XML metadata directly within a system, but that XML descriptive
standards will not disappear or fade out any time soon. Thus, the Digitization Manager
should consistently advertise the willingness of the GWBHS to work with student-interns
who can share information about cutting-edge development in the field, and return
information about the needs of the museum to their programs, colleagues, and other
potential aid.

Technological upgrades should be assessed and carried out by technologically adept

personnel. Otherwise, potential shutdowns and user-orientated problems could occur. By
preparing for potential issues before they occur, and including plans to deal with unforeseen

20
As briefly noted in earlier sections, we recommend the use of Dublin Core description when cataloging digital collections.
Typically a “creator” or collection “title” is used as the main identifiers for collections. The GWBHS should use these as the storage
naming conventions in a digital hard-drive, categorized more broadly within its appropriate digitization phase.
25
circumstances within policy guidelines in the digitization policy drafted from this
document, the GWBHS will defray against the potential damage that disaster situations
could otherwise cause.

Further, it will be important to ensure the capabilities of software and up-to-date equipment
over time. Otherwise, software could be discontinued, funding could run out, disaster
(natural, malicious, or otherwise) could destroy the value and ability of the collection to be
digitized, or other similar problems could endanger the process. If value-loss occurs within
the life span of a digital object, the item will have to be re-digitized or moved to a queue for
later value-assessment (as time and funding permits beyond the scope of the project).

Section 4.2.5: Metadata Migration

We have briefly introduced and discussed the application of metadata to digital objects
throughout this report. Metadata is essentially digital description. In the digital
environment, this information has to be coded so that users can see it when accessing the
GWBHS digital collections through remote online access.

There are software programs today that do this on a basic level, and we understand that the
GWBHS is somewhat familiar with the practices of Past Perfect. As we stated in the
introductory section on Context for the Project, our aim in this project plan is not to
recommend platforms or software that will render the digital images viewable through the
GWBHS website. Rather, we are interested in the process of digitization alone, which
includes ensuring that image capture, associated metadata, and policies regarding labor,
organizing physical collections, and attention paid to legal metrics (such as copyright and
intellectual property) are attended to.

However, as a general note: regardless of what system is chosen for patron access to the
digital objects (which, through our conversation Bill and Buzz of the GWBHS, was
determined to likely be PastPerfect ), it is highly likely to require replacement (due to
obsolescence) within a decade. Digital repositories that care for permanent or semi-
permanent digital object data have to care for those materials with this in mind. Thus, the
GWBHS needs to constantly be watching for developing software and newer metadata-
capturing practices. An easy way to do this is to watch and communicate directly with
similar institutions in the Southeast Michigan area, build a network of professionals by
allowing some GWBHS to go to conferences on cultural heritage preservation and related
topics, and to watch and follow the initiatives that others take, including how frequently
they do so.

26
For naming conventions and description standards, we are recommending that the GWBHS
describe all digital objects using the minimum fields set out by the Dublin Core metadata
schema (explanation provided in Appendix E), whether applied through a compliant
software or through raw XML coding. Many museum software programs currently employ
entry fields that translate directly to the required Dublin Core fields (including PastPerfect),
so high-level expertise is not necessary for utilizing the standard. Dublin Core is a well-
known framework with 15 recommended fields, however, other (better) description
standards also exist, and in the case that the GWBHS collection becomes extremely high-
volume with thousands of daily users whose needs push for further description, other
standards may need to be considered. 21

Section 4.2.6: Image Management

Over time, the quality and format of images themselves can also change. Today, the
international standards for images are JPEG and TIFF. Other generally accepted formats
include JPEG 2000 (JP2), and PNG. Each of these formats cannot be accepted across all
platforms and systems. Therefore, all digital objects in the GWBHS repository should be
displayed using a single consistent format (specific recommendations are listed in the
previous section: 4.1). When that format begins to shift to an improved standard, the
GWBHS digitization committee will have to assess how (and whether or not) to implement
those changes: metadata and objects can be transferred in house and by hand, but the
software and hardware of the museum might not be able to render the newer standards.
Thus, the costs at large will need to be considered throughout this process. It is worth
keeping in mind that some components of a project will grow beyond what was expected,
and thus, will also become more expensive. Whether or not those added expenses can fit
within the project budget will have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Although the costs of actual image storage space are likely to remain relatively low, the costs
of frequently improving, upgrading, and replacing technological equipment can be taxing.
Looking at these changing standards very early in the process can give staff a much larger
window of time during which to learn and master newly identified standards before their
required implementation into the facility at large.

Section 4.2.7: Managing Collection Scope

Although standards and new innovations may change the requirements for the digitization
process, the evolving needs and mission of the GWBHS can also necessitate changes. In

21
An example Dublin Core description record for a digital photograph was provided in Section 4.1, and can illustrate a helpful
example in undergoing the process. If the GWBHS would like any more examples beyond that, they can be easily found and
retrieved online.
27
addition to evaluating whether or not equipment meets the needs of the collection at large,
the digitization team should assess whether or not the digital records meets the needs of the
user community. When that answer becomes “no,” user feedback should be sought for aid in
determining which content needs to be considered for de-accessioning, and what
subsequent “new” items would warrant further accessioning in order to validate shifting
audience needs. This will be discussed in greater detail in the following section on Policy
Reevaluation.

Section 5: Policy Reevaluation

As an overall recommendation, the GWBHS should review and reevaluate the digitization
policy every one to two years (although annual evaluation is recommended). Current
standards should always be reflected in within policy documentation, but the evolving goals
and needs of changing user audience should play a key role in policy development.

Throughout this paper we have discussed and attempted to reiterate the importance of
policy reevaluation. This will logically take place at the end of each digitization phase, but
can be required in additional places throughout the project. A reevaluation process should
involve all workers involved with the digitization process (the “digitization team”) at its first
level. Any changes that have arisen and need to be reflected within the overall policy should
be drafted as an addendum to the original policy. After the digitization team has agreed
upon and approved said changes, the amended policy should be presented to the GWBHS
board and ratified as the newest version of the policy. This process, although tedious, will
ensure that all employees of the GWBHS maintain the same motivation to continue the
process, share and develop new project goals, and understand the necessity and both
preservation and user accessibility throughout the process.

In evaluating digitization, several aspects of the process should be considered:

● Project Assessment
The project manager should monitor the quality of the files that are being produced
by the digitization team, and give them quality feedback on any problems with their
workflow or end-product files. The Digitization Manager should provide feedback on
employees’ work output early (and often) within the process. The project manager
should also make note of several use metrics once digital materials are released to the
public. Types of materials with the highest levels of access, the types of users utilizing
the artifacts, high-traffic web-use times, and levels of access and materials circulation
28
 should be measured. This information could directly translate to the types of user-
demands determined to be major criterion within the selection process.

● File & Metadata Management

As we have discussed earlier, files are likely to require migration to newer and more
improved formats within their life span. Migration will ensure the preservation
quality of digitized images, and will continue to deliver the accessibility of online
collections to GWBHS patrons. When migration is deemed necessary and is
undertaken by the digitization team, the newly determined file format should be
reflected as the required standard within policy documentation, and added during
the annual evaluation period (if not already explicitly listed within the policy).

Rich metadata records can be described in extreme detail in several existing metadata
schemas. Because the GWBHS is a small institution with a targeted clientele, complex
algorithms and XML schemas are not realistic or necessary options. Thus, we have
recommended the Dublin Core framework to be used within or outside of museum-
digitization software. However, in the future, successive editions of appropriate
software may cease to exist, and the museum will have to select a new software
program to render the images viewable for the online community. Metadata may
require updating and some manual editing in different environments, and all changes
made to existing records should be recorded with explicit detail in a review document
and submitted as an appendix to the overall GWBHS digitization policy.

● Selection
We described the importance of careful selection for digitization earlier in this
project plan; however, a long-term selection consideration may not require additions
to the repository, but deletions from it. In the instance that future analyses of digital
collections find that some items and artifacts are out of scope, the GWBHS should
carefully consider de-accessioning non-applicable items. This process could become
vital for the continued mission of the museum if and when the space in the online
storage environment begins to run out.

● Audiovisual Materials & Born-Digital Material

Digital technology improves rapidly, and during annual evaluation, the current state
of multimedia and image standards will be measured. Audiovisual material is not the
primary concern at the moment, but when other priorities have been cared for, they
could eventually become important for the GWBHS to preserve.

29
 In considering the preservation of their own materials, the GWBHS may consider
creating or preserving other born-digital materials that reflect their institutional
growth. Such creations (i.e. the GWBHS and other culturally-important websites in
the region) could be considered valuable for archiving in the future. The GWBHS can
capture this with web crawling software.

● Job Descriptions & Training

Job and labor descriptions should be amended as necessary at each annual policy
reevaluation meeting. The nature and duties of the intern positions can, and likely
will, change over the length of the project. The GWBHS should also record and
reevaluate training processes offered to members of the digitization team. As phases
and priorities of the institution evolve, the training will need to capture the most
effective teaching mechanisms while adding new components that are relevant to
modified policies and institutional needs. By keeping track of past successes and
failures in training, the GWBHS can ensure that institutional knowledge of the
digitization effort can be retained over time.

● Timeline & Costs

Reevaluation of the timeline is extremely important for the GWBHS to stay on-track
and to understand the needs and abilities of its people, finances, and to balance those
in accordance with user demands. A timeline is sure to require frequent
readjustment, and all changes should be reflected within the digitization policy at
large. In staying on par with transparency recommendations made earlier, we also
believe that making the development and progress of the process visible to users will
build a greater reputation and community trust in the repository.

In tandem with the timeline are associated costs: just as a timeline requires flexibility,
costs listed on the budget sheet may also change. An annual reevaluation will allow
the GWBHS to project costs forward and to make sure that the project is still
manageable. Newer vendors with different costs, interns with advanced capabilities
and access to low-cost equipment, or other resources could all be identified in the
future. The GWBHS should keep close tabs on evolving budgetary concerns, and
schedule consistent meetings with the digitization team so that any necessary policy
alterations can be identified and enacted as early as possible.

Conclusion
30
Within this plan we have aimed to give specific recommendations wherever possible, and
include clear examples of drafted policies, examples of similar institutions’ public efforts,
and external links to more information. We hope that the GWBHS board will take many of
these recommendations to heart, but by no means are they comprehensive or all
encompassing, nor do they claim to be. The GWBHS will have to determine timelines,
external vendors, Digital (and assistant) Managers, and designate appropriate interns and
equipment—all while using our plan to structure a culturally fit policy on digitization. From
our interactions and experiences with GWBHS staff, we have recognized a clear devotion to
the greater West Bloomfield educational and user communities, to the sharing of cultural
resources, and staff-wide dedication to the museum. These characteristics are what will help
the museum to make well-informed decisions that are the most sensible for the institution,
its mission, resources, and its community at large.

Worth noting, is that “there are no absolute rules for creating good digital collections. Every
digital collection-building initiative is unique, with its own users, goals, and
needs...Museums, libraries, archives, and schools have different constituencies, priorities,
institutional cultures, funding mechanisms, and governance structures.” 22 Thus, even the
cited example policies and directed recommendations should be taken with a grain of salt.
They are all thorough and well researched, but the GWBHS staff should carefully select bits
and pieces of example policies, while touching on all of the specific needs we asserted within
this project plan, to find a comfortable plan that fits their needs.

In concluding this document, we would foremost like to reiterate the necessity of policy
development. Clear planning is essential for creating a comprehensive project that will
restructure not only the GWBHS collections, but also the institution and its relationship
with the community at large. Structured selection procedures will ensure that the most
appropriate digital items are chosen for successive digitization phases, and appropriate job
descriptions will further guarantee that those processes are being undertaken by persons
skilled enough to produce an end-result worthy of long-term preservation.

Outside of preparation and policy development, specific measures should be taken to

purchase and utilize appropriate equipment for digitization, beginning with phases that
bring 2D content to digital form, and ending with outsourced 3D materials. Consistent
metrics for including metadata, rendering those objects visible in the digital environment,
and creating multiple copies of images (preservation-quality and user-accessible images)
should be followed closely. We have carefully considered the budget (with some
22
National Information Standards Organization http://framework.niso.org/node/7 (“how to use” section)
31
understanding that portions of the GWBHS savings through the generous bequest received
last year would be allocated to digitization efforts) in making technical and quality
assurance recommendations. Other recommendations were made according to professional,
nationally recognized standards (not tailored to the GWBHS). Thus, the museum, in its aim
to digitize collections comprehensively for preservation and access, will have to do the same:
consider its own needs in tandem with professional standards.

Note of thanks:
Throughout this process, we have greatly appreciated the GWBHS’ flexibility and dedication
to instituting preservation practices. We have graciously been provided with timely
feedback, extensive documentation, and honest expectations. In return, we hope—in the
form of this project plan—to have provided the GWBHS with some of the baseline tools it
needs to begin a digitization effort. In due time, we look forward to being the first among
many to access the museum’s wealth of historical information in its digital form.

Appendices
Appendix A: Intern Job Descriptions
32
Appendix A.1.Title: Digitization Intern

Formal information:
The position of Digitization Intern at the Greater West Bloomfield Historical Society is a seasonal,
full-time, and unpaid position. The intern will be reporting to members of different inter society
committees, as well as the project manager. The Greater West Bloomfield Historical Society is
digitizing their collection to ensure widespread online accessibility and to meet the needs of the
modern researcher.

Duties:
- Management and organization of archival digital files.
- Scanning and digitization of 2-dimensional objects.
- Saving files into access copies from original scanned format.
- Accessioning 2-dimensional objects into a digital space.
- Light cataloging of collection.

Minimum qualifications:
- Experience with Adobe Photoshop.
- Experience with editing of digital images.
- Effective communication skills, both written and spoken.
- Ability to handle sensitive museum materials.
- Ability to learn and use computer software necessary for performance of job duties.
- Ability to maintain focus while performing repetitive tasks.

Desired qualifications:
- Familiarity with operation of flatbed scanner.
- Familiarity with OAIS model.

Appendix A.2. Title: Metadata Creation Intern

Formal information:
The position of Metadata Creation Intern at the Greater West Bloomfield Historical Society is a
seasonal, full-time, and unpaid position. The intern will be reporting to members of different inter
society committees, as well as the project manager. The Greater West Bloomfield Historical
Society is digitizing their collection to ensure widespread online accessibility and to meet the needs
of the modern researcher. The Metadata Creation Intern will ensure continuity in metadata and
continued accessibility through the creation of XMP records.

Duties:
- Creation of valid XMP records.
- Connection of XMP/Dublin Core records to digital photo files.

Minimum qualifications:

33
- Effective communication skills, both written and spoken.
- Experience with creation of XMP records.
- Ability to learn and use computer software necessary for performance of job duties.
- Ability to maintain focus while performing repetitive tasks.
- Proven experience working with XML metadata schemas, especially Dublin Core.
- Ability to handle sensitive museum materials.
- Experience with Adobe Photoshop

Desired qualifications:
- Research skills.

Appendix B: Budget for Project

Appendix C: Timeline
Pictured are recommended benchmarks for the GWBHS digitization project.

34
Appendix D: Adobe Photoshop Technical Specifications
System Requirements for Digitization Computer Systems (from Adobe Photoshop CS5 minimum
system requirements)

35
Appendix E: Dublin Core Metadata Framework

A simple Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DCMES) includes 15 metadata elements. As many
fields as information is known for should be included for each record digitized within the GWBHS.
For more information on how, when, and where to use metadata description, see the Dublin Core
website: (http://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide/elements.shtml). Below, the 15 elements
have been included with brief descriptions:

1. Title - name given to the resource. Typically, a Title will be a name by which the resource is
formally known.
2. Subject - The topic of the content of the resource. Typically, a Subject will be expressed as
keywords or key phrases or classification codes that describe the topic of the resource.
Recommended best practice is to select a value from a controlled vocabulary or formal
classification scheme.
3. Description - An account of the content of the resource. Description may include but is not
limited to: an abstract, table of contents, reference to a graphical representation of content or a
free-text account of the content.
4. Type - nature or genre of the content of the resource. Type includes terms describing general
categories, functions, genres, or aggregation levels for content. Recommended best practice is to
select a value from a controlled vocabulary. To describe the physical or digital manifestation of
the resource, use the format element.
5. Source - A Reference to a resource from which the present resource is derived. The present
resource may be derived from the Source resource in whole or part. Recommended best practice is
to reference the resource by means of a string or number conforming to a formal identification
system.
6. Relation - A reference to a related resource. Recommended best practice is to reference the
resource by means of a string or number conforming to a formal identification system.
7. Coverage - The extent or scope of the content of the resource. Coverage will typically include
spatial location, temporal period, or jurisdiction. Recommended best practice is to select a value
from a controlled vocabulary. Where appropriate, named places or time periods should be used in
preference to numeric identifiers (i.e. date ranges).
8. Creator - An entity primarily responsible for making the content of the resource. Examples of a
Creator include a person, an organization, or a service. Typically the name of the Creator should
be used to indicate the entity.
9. Publisher - The entity responsible for making the resource available. Examples of a Publisher
include a person, an organization, or a service. Typically, the name of a Publisher should be used
to indicate the entity.
10. Contributor - An entity responsible for making contributions to the content of the resource.
Examples of a Contributor include a person, an organization or a service. Typically, the name of a
Contributor should be used to indicate the entity.
11. Rights - Information about rights held in and over the resource. Typically a Rights element will
contain a rights management statement for the resource, or reference a service providing such
information. Often encompasses Intellectual Property Rights , Copyright. If the rights element is
absent, no assumptions can be made about the status of these and other rights with respect to the
resource.
12. Date - A date associated with an event in the life cycle of the resource. Typically, Date will be
associated with the creation or availability of the resource. Recommended best practice for

36
 encoding the date value is defined in a profile of ISO 8601 (Date and Time Formats, W3C Note,
http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE- datetime) and follows the YYYY-MM-DD format.
13. Format - The physical or digital manifestation of the resource. Typically, Format may include the
media-type or dimensions of the resource. Examples of dimensions include size and duration.
Format may be used to determine the software, hardware or other equipment needed to display
or operate the resource.
14. Identifier - Typically a reference to the item or collection using a string or number conforming to
a formal identification system. Examples include the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) (including
the Uniform Resource Locator (URL), the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and the International
Standard Book Number (ISBN).
15. Language - Language of the intellectual content of the resource should be recorded.

Bibliography

● North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, "Best Practices for File Naming." 7 May
2008. Web: 11 Dec. 2011
http://www.records.ncdcr.gov/erecords/filenaming_20080508_final.pdf

● Espon Perfection V700 Photo/V750-M Professional. Tech. Epson. Web: 11 Dec. 2011
http://www.epson.com/cmc_upload/0/000/142/238/V700_V750_InfoSheetR1.pdf

● Fleischhauer, Carl, Louis H. Sharpe II, and D. Michael Ott. Manuscript Digitization
Demonstration Project. 5. Preservation-quality Images: Types and Resolution. Library of
Congress. Web: 11 Dec. 2011 http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pictel/mddp305.htm

● Gertz, Janet. “Preservation and Selection for Digitization.” Northeast Document

Conservation Center - Preservation Leaflets. Web: 8 Dec. 2011:
http://www.nedcc.org/resources/leaflets/6Reformatting/06PreservationAndSelection.php

● Hurst-Wahl, Jill. “Digitization Vendors at the SLA Conference, part 3.” 10 Jun. 2007. Web:
11 Dec. 2011. http://hurstassociates.blogspot.com/2007/06/digitization-vendors-at-sla-
conference_10.html

● “Joyner Library Policy Manual: Digital Collections Development Policy” East Carolina
University. 5 Feb. 20009. Web: 8 Dec. 2011. http://digital.lib.ecu.edu/info/DigitalCDP.pdf

● National Information Standards Organization, “A Framework of Guidance for Building

Good Digital Collections.” 16 Apr. 2008; Web 07 Dec. 2011.
http://framework.niso.org/node/7

● “NINCH Guide to Good Practice in the Digital Representation and Management of Cultural
Heritage Materials.” National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage (NINCH),

37
 Humanities Advanced Technology and Information Institute (HATII), and University of
Glasgow. Oct. 2002. Web: 9 Dec. 2011. http://www.nyu.edu/its/humanities/ninchguide/

● National Library of Australia. “Collection Digitisation Policy,” Aug. 2009. Web: 9 Dec.
2011. http://www.nla.gov.au/policy/digitisation.html

● Peterson, Kit A. Digital Master Images - Sample Technical Specifications for Photograph
Collections. Tech. Library of Congress, June 2004. Web: 11 Dec. 2011.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/tp/DgtlMastersSamplSpecsSelctdRcmndFinal7_2004.pdf

● Schewe, Jeff. "About Metadata." Adobe, 2004. Web: 11 Dec. 2001.

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/about_metadata.pdf

● Still Image Working Group. “Technical Guidelines for Digitizing Cultural Heritage
Materials”24 Aug. 2010. Web: 10 Dec. 2011.
http://www.digitizationguidelines.gov/guidelines/digitize-technical.html

● “Sustainability of Digital Formats: Planning for Library of Congress Collections.” National

Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP). Web: 8 Dec. 2011.
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/sustain/sustain.shtml

● “Trusted Repositories Audit Certification (TRAC): Criteria and Checklist,” OCLC, Center
for Research Libraries (CRL) and the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). Feb, 2007. Web: 9 Dec. 2011.
http://www.crl.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/pages/trac_0.pdf

● Zinkham, Helena. Common and Useful Information Elements for Cataloging Pictorial
Materials. Tech. Library of Congress, June 2004. Web: 11 Dec. 2011.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/tp/Common%20Information%20Elements.pdf

38