Hi Rebecca,
Long story follows, go and get coffee now.
We are now in the midst of the early design phase for the
implementation of our museum's Enterprise Content Management System
(ECM). This is a broader system than just a DAMS, but I think
there is a good deal of wisdom in our approach (and patience).
A couple of years ago, I was an advocate for just getting a new DAMS up
and running as we were almost frustrated by the lack of workflow and a
permanent functioning DAMS that could store and manage what to us at
least are large digital preservation programs in which we've invested
relatively large amounts of time and resources.
If you look through our website you'll probably find about 1.5 million
pages of digitised records available through various databases as well
as around 230,000 digital images of various collection objects from
planes to photos and art images. Another complicating factor for us is
that we must deal with three different management systems as we are a
museum, a library and an archive and for various reasons there is no
existing single system that can manage all of those collections.
I was convinced by some IT colleagues here of the worth of looking at
these challenges in a more strategic and holistic perspective.
Consequently, we have opted to be a little more patient and head towards
a full ECM.
When we looked at our need for a DAMS, we quickly realised that it must
facilitate access to its assets to the web and it therefore would need
to talk to a web content management system (WCM). As far as our museum
is concerned, preserving things digitally and putting them into a
management system is not the end of the story. In addition, people use
web content, digital assets and other resources in many different forms
of communication, publication and presentation. These outputs need to be
managed by a central electronic document management system (EDRMS -
which we do not have currently). Implementing those three integrated
systems (DAMS, WCM & EDRMS) meant that we were now looking at an ECM.
Any DAMS must be easily able to service and operate with a number of
other major corporate systems.
We knew from the outset that in addition to the above basic system
needs, we needed an automated Workflow, so that also became part of the
ECM. And for many years here I have been lobbying for one central or
'federated' search application that would be able to allow users of
our website to search for digitised content and catalogue records across
our entire website. We currently provide our users with online access to
a lot of content, but it is via: tens of thousands of static pages; a
museum content management system; a library management system; our
National Archives catalogue ('RecordSearch'); and sundry digitised
databases that provide biographical data as well as access to digitised
unit diaries and (Australian) official histories from the major 20th
century conflicts. Our federated search application will assist users to
browse, discover and find what they want across our entire collection
and all catalogues.
Given all the work we've put into this and the challenges that we have
identified but are still to confront I am now convinced we have done the
right thing in terms of our future. It does seem that no one system was
fully able to account comprehensively for our digital preservation needs
in terms of off-the-shelf systems or software, but we have outlined what
we need (in terms of a 'Trusted Digital Repository' (
http://www.crl.edu/content.asp?l1=13&l2=58&l3=162&l4=91
)) and our implementation partners are now scoping a system accordingly.
Dealing with preservation metadata will also prove to be a major
challenge, but at least we will make a start in the right direction.
Compromise is something we always wanted to limit, but it is going to be
an issue we will need to deal with sensibly and practically if we are to
make progress.
What we have found is that migration of data and objects from one
system into the ECM (whether it be the DAMS or WCM or EDRMS component)
is subject to both the parameters of the new system and legacy issues
surrounding the existing systems, so that is something you do need to
keep in mind when considering the creation of interim or isolated
solutions that may well bring new problems of their own. Most of the
so-called DAMS systems currently available do not seem to account for
all needs that many museums would have, so again, I'd be very careful in
thinking that they alone can deliver a lot to you. Many are lacking in
one or several of the following aspects and abilities: accepting all
relevant formats; metadata fields; integration with other systems; solid
database parameters; audit-ability; solid R&D back-up to keep pace with
rapid technological advances; migration and updates of formats;
standards; ingest abilities; etc. Some so-called DAMS are nothing more
than tarted up image 'management' systems that have been designed with
little more in mind than 'photo albums' or file management systems like
those available on Windows or Macs. Few have any resident or
configurable workflow abilities and I think that with a DAMS that really
is essential.
Now, the products we have selected to use for this are as follows:
The Interwoven ECM product suite including:
WorkSite NT and Interwoven Records Manager (EDRMS),
MediaBin (DAM),
TeamSite (WCM).
And Autonomy (Search).
To answer the last few questions:
The ECM will need customisation for our particular needs and that is
being designed now. We don't know whether users like it yet, but
usability was a key factor in our selection process. Integration with
our other collection management programs is currently being scoped by
Interwoven and our implementation partners in AlphaWest, but so far
there have been no show-stoppers identified.
Cheers,
Mal
_______________________
Mal Booth
Head of Research Centre
Australian War Memorial
GPO Box 345
Canberra ACT 2601
+61 2 6243 4250
+61 2 6243 4545 (fax)
+61 0403 378627
mal.booth at awm.gov.au
Read my blog http://blog.awm.gov.au/lawrence/ (
http://blog.awm.gov.au/lawrence/ )
>>> "Dankert, Rebecca" <Rebecca.Dankert at phxart.org> 14/07/2007 2:47 am
>>>
Dear All,
Until now I have been merely lurking and learning on this excellent
List-serv, but now I have a query!
Phoenix Art Museum is beginning a digital initiative, and I am seeking
user opinions on digital asset management systems. I have below a
list
of five questions and I would appreciate both responses to these
questions and any other suggestions/advice about choosing and
implementing a DAMs. My apologies if any of these questions have
already been asked and answered by others on the list.
1. What is the scope of your digital project and how did this affect
your choice of products?
2. What digital asset management system does your institution use?
3. Is/was your DAMs easily customizable? Was any necessary
customization done in-house, or out-of-house?
4. Do the end-users of the system like it? Do they find it easy to
use
and relatively self-explanatory?
5. How does the DAMs integrate with other programs, such as a
Collections Management System?
While I am not particularily knowledgeable about the various
techinical
aspects of servers, DAMs, CMS, and other programs utilized for digital
asset management, I would appreciate receiving as much technical
information regarding compatibility of products and the ways in which
other institutions have integrated their various systems.
Please feel free to contact me off-list at Rebecca.Dankert at phxart.org.
Thank you in advance for any responses!
Rebecca
Rebecca L. Dankert
Assistant Registrar
Phoenix Art Museum
Rebecca.Dankert at phxart.org
http://www.phxart.org/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum
Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu)
To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu
To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
