Project home page

Data collected

"Is it worth bothering.."

23rd November 2004

In the background of RLOR is the 'why' question.
The project will have to be able to show that it is worth the trouble trying to utilise some form of RLOR.

The following outline of an index has been developed.
It is a result of the discussions with the committee plus comments from those working on repositories.

RLOR:

Item

Rating/Value

Justification

 

Comments

Monetary cost

 

 

 

 

Scalability

 

 

 

 

Time Cost to staff

 

 

 

 

Educational cost to staff

 

 

 

 

Reusability of the system

 

 

 

 

Freshness of information

 

 

 

 

Range of file formats

 

 

 

 

Appropriate to local institution

 

 

 

 

IP issues

 

 

 

 

Recognition of user  cont.

 

 

 

 

Quality assurance approach

 

 

 

 

Security

 

 

 

 

Potential scope and expandable functions

 

 

 

 

Flexibility in educational assumptions

 

 

 

 

User friendliness

 

 

 

 

Geekiness

 

 

 

 


 

Item

Left-scale

mid-scale

Right-scale

Scalability

Heavy use of repository disc space

 

V.Low use of repository disc space

Time Cost to staff

Requires significant time to enter an object

 

Requires minimal time to enter an object

Educational cost to staff

Requires time to fit into assumed model

Has flexible model

No assumed educational model

Reusability of the system – including editable data

Material cannot be edited or incorporated

Some editing is possible but restricted

Material can be edited and saved and generally extracted for use

Freshness of information

Material is tied to submitted version –usually because hard copy

 

Material available is the current copy –usually virtual access

Range of file formats

Very limited

 

Most that people would use

Appropriate to local institution

Meets rules and policies

 

Does not meet rules and policies

IP hassles

Strong IP controls

IP controls related to local institution

No IP controls

Recognition of user contribution

Has well-defined user contribution system

Uses some internal system for user contribution

No user contribution system

Quality assurance approach

External' assessment of quality assurance

Internal user-oriented quality assurance

No quality assurance

Security system users and depositors

Strong security controls for all levels of access

Limited security to maintain integrity

No security system

Potential scope and expandable functions

 

 

 

Flexibility in educational assumptions

Has a clear pedagogical position

 

Has no obvious pedagogical position

User friendliness

Very user friendly

 

Very user unfriendly

Geekiness

Definite technology overload

 

Limited technology feel