116   iNForMaTioN TECHNoloGY aND liBrariES  |  SEpTEMBEr 2009

Success Factors and Strategic 
Planning: Rebuilding an Academic 
Library Digitization Program

Cory Lampert and 
Jason Vaughan

This paper discusses a dual approach of case study and 
research survey to investigate the complex factors in 
sustaining academic library digitization programs. The 
case study involves the background of the University of 
Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) Libraries’ digitization pro-
gram and elaborates on the authors’ efforts to gain staff 
support for this program. A related survey was admin-
istered to all Association of Research Libraries (ARL) 
members, seeking to collect baseline data on their digital 
collections, understand their respective administrative 
frameworks, and to gather feedback on both negative 
obstacles and positive inputs affecting their success. 
Results from the survey, combined with the authors’ 
local experience, point to several potential success fac-
tors including staff skill sets, funding, and strategic 
planning.

E
stablishing a successful digitization program is 
a dialog and process already undertaken or cur-
rently underway at many academic libraries. In 

2002, according to an Institute of Museum and Library 
Services report, “thirty-four percent of academic librar-
ies reported digitization activities within the past 12 
months.” Nineteen percent expect to be involved in digi-
tization work in the next twelve months, and forty-four 
percent beyond twelve months.1 More current statistics 
from a subsequent study in 2004 reflected that digitiza-
tion work has both continued and expanded, with half 
of all academic libraries performing digitization activi-
ties.2 Fifty-five percent of ARL libraries responded to a 
survey informing part of the 2006 Association of Research 
Libraries (ARL) study Managing Digitization Activities; of 
these, 97 percent of the respondents indicated engagement 
in digitization.3 The 2008 Ithaka study Key Stakeholders 
in the Digital Transformation in Higher Education found 
that nearly 80 percent of large academic libraries either 
already have or plan to have digital repositories.4 With 
digitization becoming the norm in many institutions, the 
time is right to consider what factors contribute to the 
success and rapid growth of some library digitization 
programs while other institutions find digitization chal-
lenging to sustain.

The evolution of digitization at the UNLV Libraries is 

doubtless a journey many institutions have undertaken. 
Over the past couple of years, those responsible for such 
a program at the UNLV Libraries have had the opportu-
nity to revitalize the program and help collaboratively 
address some key philosophical questions that had not 
been systematically asked before, let alone answered. 
Associated with this was a concerted focus to engage 
other less involved staff. One goal was to help educate 
them on academic digitization programs. Another goal 
was to provide an opportunity for input on key ques-
tions related to the programs’ strategic direction. As a 
subsequent action, the authors conducted a survey of 
other academic libraries to better understand what fac-
tors have contributed to their programs’ own success as 
well as challenges that have proven problematic. Many 
questions asked of our library staff in the planning and 
reorganization process were asked in the survey of 
other academic libraries. While the UNLV Libraries have 
undertaken what is felt are the proper structural steps 
and have begun to author policies and procedures geared 
toward an efficient operation, the authors wanted to bet-
ter understand the experiences, key players, and underly-
ing philosophies of other institutional libraries as theses 
pertain to their own digitization program. The following 
article provides a brief context relating the background of 
the UNLV Libraries’ digitization program and elaborates 
on the authors’ efforts toward educating library col-
leagues and gaining staff buy-in for UNLV’s digitization 
program—a process that countless other institutions have 
no doubt experienced, led, or suffered. The administered 
survey to ARL members dealt with many topics similar to 
those that arose during the authors’ initial planning and 
later conversations with library staff, and as such, survey 
questions and responses are integrated in the following 
discussion. 

The authors administered a 26-question survey to 
the 123 members of the ARL. The focus of this survey 
was different from the previously mentioned ARL study 
Managing Digitization Activities, though several of the 
questions overlapped to some degree. In addition to 
demographic or concrete factual types of questions, the 
UNLV Libraries Digitization Survey had several ques-
tions focused on perceptions—that is, staff support, 
administrative support, challenges, and benefits. Areas 
of overlap with the earlier ARL survey are mentioned in 
the appropriate context. Though UNLV isn’t a member 
of the ARL, we consider ourselves a research library, 
and, regardless, it was a convenient way to provide some 
structure to the survey. Survey responses were collected 
for a forty-five-day period from mid-June to late July, 
2008. Through visiting each and every ARL library’s web-
site, the authors identified the individuals that appeared 
to be the “leaders” of the ARL digitization programs, 
with instructions to forward the message to a colleague if 

Cory lampert (cory.lampert@unlv.edu) is digitization Projects 
Librarian and Jason Vaughan (jason.vaughan@unlv.edu) is 
director, Library Technologies, University of nevada Las Vegas.



SuCCESS FaCTorS aND STraTEGiC plaNNiNG  |  laMpErT aND VauGHaN   117

they themselves had been incorrectly identified. This was 
very tricky, and revealed numerous program structures 
in place, differences between institutions in promoting 
their collections, and so on. The authors didn’t necessar-
ily start with the presumption that all ARL libraries even 
have a digitization program, but most (but not all) either 
seemed to have a formal organized digitization program 
with staffing, or at least had digitized and made available 
something, even if only a single collection. We e-mailed 
a survey announcement and a link to the survey to the 
targeted individuals, with a follow-up reminder a month 
later. Responses were anonymous, and respondents were 
allowed to skip questions; thus the number of responses 
for the twenty-six questions making up the survey 
ranged from a low of thirty (24.4 percent) to a high of 
forty-four responses (35.8 percent). The average number 
of responses for each of the questions was 39.8, yield-
ing an overall response rate of 32.4 percent. Questions 
were of three types: multiple choice (select one answer), 
multiple choice (mark all that apply), and open text. In 
addition, some of the multiple choice questions allowed 
additional open text comments. Survey responses appear 
in appendix A.

n Context of the UNLV Libraries’ digitization program
“Digital collection,” for the purpose of the UNLV Library 
Digitization Survey, was defined as 

a collection of library or archival materials converted to 
machine-readable format to provide electronic access or 
for preservation purposes; typically, digital collections 
are library-created digital copies of original materials 
presented online and organized to be easily searched. 
They may offer features such as: full text search, brows-
ing, zooming and panning, side by side comparison of 
objects, and export for presentation and reuse.

One question the survey asked was “what year do you 
feel your library published its first ‘major’ digital collec-
tion?” Responses ranged from 1990 to 2007; the general 
average of all responses was 2001. The earlier ARL study 
found 2000 as the year most respondents began digiti-
zation activities.5 Mirroring this chronology, the UNLV 
Libraries has been active in designing digital projects and 
digitizing materials from library collections since the late 
1990s. Technical Web design expertise was developed 
in the Cataloging unit (later renamed Bibliographic and 
Metadata Services), and some of the initial efforts were 
to create online galleries and exhibits of visual materials 
from Special Collections, such as the Jeanne Russell Janish 
(1998) exhibit.6 Subsequently, the UNLV Libraries pur-
chased the CONTENTdm digital collection management 

software, providing both back-end infrastructure and 
front-end presentation for digital collections. Later, the 
first digitization project with search functionality was 
created in partnership with Special Collections and was 
funded by a UNLV Planning Initiative Award received 
in 1999. The Early Las Vegas (2003) project focused on 
Las Vegas historical material and was designed to guide 
users to search, retrieve, and manipulate results using 
CONTENTdm software to query a database.7 UNLV’s 
development corresponds with regional developments 
in Utah in 2001, when “the largest academic institutions 
in Utah were just beginning to develop digital imaging 
projects.”8 Data from the 2004 IMLS study showed that, 
in the twelve months prior to the study release in 2004, 
the majority of larger academic libraries had digitized 
between one and five hundred images for online presen-
tation.9

In terms of staffing, digitization efforts occur in a wide 
variety of configurations, from large departments to solo 
librarians managing volunteers. For institutions with rec-
ognized digitization staff, great variations exist between 
institutions in terms of where in the organizational 
chart digitization staff are placed. Boock and Vondacek’s 
research revealed that, of departments involved in digi-
tization, special collections, archives, technical services, 
and newly created digital library units are where digiti-
zation activities most commonly take place.10 A majority 
of respondents to the ARL study indicated that some 
or all activities associated with digitization are distrib-
uted across various units in the library.11 In 2003, the 
UNLV Libraries created a formal department within 
the Knowledge Access Management division—Web and 
Digitization Services (WDS)—initially comprising five 
staff focused on the development of the UNLV Libraries’ 
public website, the development of web-based applica-
tions and databases to manage and efficiently present 
information resources, and the digitization and online 
presentation of library materials unique to the UNLV 
Libraries’ collections and of potential interest to a wider 
audience. Augmenting their efforts were individuals in 
other departments helping with metadata standards, con-
tent selection, and associated systems technical support. 
The UNLV Library Digitization Survey showed that the 
majority (78 percent) of libraries that responded have at 
least one full-time staff member whose central job respon-
sibility is to support digitization activities. This should 
not imply the existence of a fully staffed digitization 
program; the 2006 IMLS study found that 74.1 percent of 
larger academic libraries described themselves as lack-
ing in sufficiently skilled technology staff to accomplish 
technology-related activities.12

Central to any digitization program should be some 
structure in terms of how projects are proposed and 
subsequently prioritized. To help guide the priorities 



118   iNForMaTioN TECHNoloGY aND liBrariES  |  SEpTEMBEr 2009

of UNLV’s infant WDS department, a Digital Projects 
Advisory Committee was formed to help solicit and 
prioritize project ideas, and subsequently track the 
development of approved projects. This committee’s 
work could be judged as having mixed success partly 
because it met too infrequently, struggled with conflict-
ing philosophical thoughts on digitization, and was 
confronted with the reality that staff that were needed to 
help bring approved ideas to fruition simply weren’t in 
place because of too many other library priorities draw-
ing attention away from digitization. An evaluation of 
the lessons learned from these early years can be found 
in Brad Eden’s article.13 The UNLV Library Digitization 
Survey had several questions related to management 
and prioritization for digital projects and shows that 
despite the challenges of a committee-based decision-
making structure, when a formal process is in place at 
all, 42.1 percent of survey respondents used a committee 
versus a single decision maker (23.7 percent) for deter-
mining to whom projects are proposed for production. 
A follow-up question asked “how are approved projects 
ultimately prioritized?” The most popular response 
(54.1 percent) indicated “by a committee for review by 
multiple people,” followed by “no formal process” (27 
percent). “By a single decision maker” was selected by 
18.9 percent of the respondents. The earlier ARL study 
asked a somewhat related question: “Who makes deci-
sions about the allocation of staff support for digitiza-
tion efforts? Check all that apply.” Out of seven possible 
responses, the three most popular were “head of cen-
tralized unit,” “digitization team/committee/working 
group,” and “other person”; the other person was most 
often in an administrative capacity, such as a dean, 
director, or department head.14

Administrative support for a program was another 
variable the UNLV Library Digitization Survey investi-
gated. The survey asked respondents to rate, on a scale of 
one to five, “how would you characterize current support 
for digitization by your library’s administration?” More 
than 40 percent of responses indicated “consistent sup-
port,” followed by 31 percent of respondents indicating 
“very strong support, top priority,” 14.3 percent ranking 
support as neutral, and 14.2 percent claiming “minimal 
support” or “very little support, or some resistance.” It 
was also clear from some of the other questions’ responses 
that the dean or director’s support (or lack thereof) can 
have dramatic effects on the digitization program. 2005 
brought change to the UNLV Libraries in the form of a new 
dean. Well-suited for the digitization program, she came 
from California, a state very heavily engaged and at the 
forefront of digitization within the library and larger aca-
demic environment. One of her initiatives was a retooling 
of the digitization program at the UNLV Libraries, and her 
enthusiasm reflects a growing awareness of administrators 
regarding the benefits of digitization.

n Reorganization, library staff engagement, and decision making
In 2006, two new individuals joined UNLV Libraries’ Web 
and Digitization Services Department, the digitization 
projects librarian (filling a vacancy), and the Web tech-
nical support manager (a new position). A bit later, the 
Systems department (providing technical support for the 
Web and digitization servers, among other things), and 
the WDS department were combined into a single unit 
and renamed Library Technologies. Collectively, these 
changes brought new and engaged staff into the digitiza-
tion program and combined under one division many of 
the individuals responsible for digital collection creation 
and support. Perhaps more subtlety, this arrangement 
also provided formal acknowledgement of the impor-
tance and desire of publishing digital collections. 

With the addition of new staff and a reorganization, 
a piece still missing was a resuscitation of library stake-
holders to help solicit, prioritize, and manage the cre-
ation of digital collections and an overall vision guiding 
the program. While the technical expertise, knowledge 
of metadata and imaging standards, and deep-rooted 
knowledge of digitization programs and concepts existed 
within the Library Technologies staff, other knowledge 
didn’t—primarily in-depth knowledge of the UNLV 
Libraries’ Special Collections and a track record of deep 
engagement with college faculty and the educational 
curriculum. Similar to other organizations, the UNLV 
Libraries had not only created a new unit, but was also 
poised to introduce cross-departmental project groups 
that would collaborate on digitization activities. In their 
study of ARL and Greater Western Library Association 
(GWLA) libraries, Book and Vondracek found that this 
was the most commonly used organizational structure.15 
Knowledge of the concepts of a digitization program and 
what is involved in digitizing and sustaining a collec-
tion was not widespread among other library colleagues. 
Acknowledged, but not guaranteed up front for the UNLV 
Libraries, was the likely eventual reformation of a group 
of interested and engaged library stakeholders charged 
to solicit, prioritize, and provide oversight of the UNLV 
Libraries’ digitization program. For various reasons, 
the authors wanted to garner staff buy-in to the highest 
degree possible. Apart from wanting less informed col-
leagues to understand the benefits of a digitization pro-
gram, it was also likely that such colleagues would help 
solicit projects through their liaison work with programs 
of study across campus. One UNLV Library Digitization 
Survey question asked, “how would you characterize 
support for digitization in your library by the majority 
of those providing content for digitization projects?” 
“Consistent support” was indicated by 65.9 percent of 
respondents; 15.9 percent indicated “very strong support, 
top priority,” 13.6 percent indicated neutrality, and 4.6 



SuCCESS FaCTorS aND STraTEGiC plaNNiNG  |  laMpErT aND VauGHaN   119

percent indicated either minimal support or even some 
resistance. To help garner staff buy-in and set the stage 
for revitalizing the UNLV Libraries’ digitization efforts, 
we began laying the groundwork to educate and engage 
library staff in the benefits of a digitization program. This 
work included language successfully woven into the 
UNLV Libraries’ strategic plan and an authored white 
paper posing engaging questions to the larger library 
audience related to the strategic direction of the program. 
Finally, we planned and executed two digitization work-
shops for library staff.

n The strategic plan
One UNLV Library Digitization Survey question asked, 
“is the digitization program or digitization activities 
referenced in your library’s strategic plan?” A total of 
63.4 percent indicated yes, with an additional 22 percent 
indicating no specific references, but rather implied ref-
erences. Only 7.3 percent indicated that the digitization 
program was not referenced in any manner in the stra-
tegic plan, while, surprisingly, 3 responses (7.3 percent) 
indicated that their library doesn’t have a strategic plan. 
The UNLV Libraries’ strategic plan is an important docu-
ment authored with wide feedback from library staff, 
and it exemplifies the participatory decision-making 
process in place in the library. The current iteration of the 
strategic plan covers 2007–9 and includes various goals 
with supporting strategies and action items.16 In addition, 
all action items have associated assessment metrics and 
library staff responsible for championing the action items. 
Departmental annual reports explicitly reference progress 
toward strategic plan goals. As such, if goals related to 
the digitization program appear in the strategic plan, 
that’s a clear indication, to some degree, of staff buy-in 
in acknowledging the significance of the digitization pro-
gram. Fortunately, digitization efforts figure prominently 
in several goals, strategies, and action items, including 
the following:

	 n Increasingly provide access to digital collections 
and services to support instruction, research, and 
outreach while improving access to the UNLV 
Libraries’ print and media collections. 

 n Provide greater access to digital collections while 
continuing to build and improve access to collec-
tions in all formats to meet the research and teach-
ing needs of the university. Identify collections to 
digitize that are unique to UNLV and that have a 
regional, national, and international research inter-
est. Create digital projects utilizing and linking col-
lections. Develop and adapt metadata and scanning 
standards that conform to national standards for all 

formats. Provide content and metadata for regional 
and national digital projects. Continue to develop 
expertise in the creation and management of digi-
tal collections and information. Collaborate with 
faculty, students, and others outside the library in 
developing and presenting digital collections.

 n Be a comprehensive resource for the documenta-
tion, investigation, and interpretation of the com-
plex realities of the Las Vegas metropolitan area 
and provide an international focal point for the 
study of Las Vegas as a unique urban and cultural 
phenomenon. Facilitate real and digital access to 
materials and information that document the his-
torical, cultural, social, and environmental setting 
of Las Vegas and its region by identifying, collect-
ing, preserving, and managing information and 
materials in all formats. Identify unique collections 
that strengthen current collections of national and 
international significance in urban development 
and design, gaming, entertainment, and architec-
ture. Develop new access tools and enhance the use 
of current bibliographic and metadata utilities to 
provide access to physical and digital collections. 
Develop Web-based digital projects and exhibits 
based upon the collections.

An associated capital campaign case statement associ-
ated with the strategic plan lists several gift opportunities 
that would benefit various aspects of the UNLV Libraries; 
several of these include gift ideas related to the digitiza-
tion of materials. 

n The white paper
Another important step in laying the groundwork for the 
digitization program was a comprehensive white paper 
authored by the recently hired digitization projects librar-
ian. The finished paper was originally given to the dean 
of libraries and thereafter to the administrative cabinet, 
and eventually distributed to all library staff. The out-
line of this white paper is provided as appendix B. The 
purpose of the white paper was multifaceted. After a 
brief historical context, the white paper addressed per-
haps the single most important aspect of a digitization 
program—program planning—developing the strategic 
goals of the program, selecting and prioritizing projects 
though a formal decision-making process, and managing 
initiatives from idea to reality through efficient project 
teams. This first topic addressing the core values of the 
program had a strong educational purpose for the entire 
library staff—the ultimate audience of the paper. As part 
of its educational goal, the white paper enumerated the 
various strengths of digitization and why an institution 



120   iNForMaTioN TECHNoloGY aND liBrariES  |  SEpTEMBEr 2009

would want to sustain a digitization program (providing 
greater worldwide access to unique materials, promoting 
and supporting education and learning when integrated 
with the curriculum, etc.). It defined distinctions between 
an ephemeral digital exhibit and a long-term published 
and maintained collection. It discussed the various com-
ponents of a digital collection—images, multimedia, 
metadata, indexing, thematic presentation (and the pref-
erence to be unbiased), integration with other digital col-
lections and the library website, etc. It posited important 
questions on sustenance and assessment, and defined 
concepts such as refreshing of data and migration of data to 
help set the stage for future philosophical discussions.

Given the myriad reasons one might want to publish 
a digital collection, checked by the reality that all the rea-
sons and advantages may not be realized or given equal 
importance, the white paper listed several scenarios and 
asked if each scenario was a strong underlying goal for 
our program—in short, true or false:

 n “The libraries are interested in digitizing select 
unique items held in our collection and providing 
access to these items in new formats.”

 n “The Libraries are interested in digitizing whole 
runs of an information resource for access in new 
formats.”

 n “The Libraries should actively pursue funding to 
support major digitization initiatives.”

 n “The Libraries should take advantage of the unique 
publicity, promotion, and marketing opportunities 
afforded by a digital project/program.”

Continuing with a purpose of defining boundaries of 
the new program, the paper asked questions related to 
audience, required skill sets, and resources.

The second primary topic introduced the selection and 
prioritization of the items and ideas suggested for digiti-
zation. It posed questions related to content criteria (Why 
does this idea warrant consideration? Would complex or 
unique metadata be required from a subject specialist?) 
and listed various potential evaluative measures of proj-
ect ideas (Should we do this if another library is already 
doing a very similar project?). Technical criteria consider-
ations were enumerated, touching on interoperability of 
collections in different formats, technical infrastructure 
considerations, and so on. Multiple simultaneous ideas 
beg for prioritization, and the white paper proposed a 
formal review process and the library staff and skill sets 
that would help make such a process successful. 

The third primary topic focused on the details of 
carrying an approved idea to reality, and strengthened 
the educational purpose of the white paper. It described 
the general planning steps for an approved project 
and included a list of typical steps involved with most 
digital projects—scanning; creating metadata, indexes, 

and controlled vocabulary; coding and designing the 
Web interface; loading records into UNLV Libraries’ 
CONTENTdm system; publicizing the launch of the proj-
ect; and assessing the project after completion. One UNLV 
Library Digitization Survey question was related to thir-
teen such skills the UNLV Libraries identified as critical 
for a successful digitization program. The question asked 
respondents to rate skill levels possessed by personnel 
at their library, based on a five-point scale (from one to 
five: “no expertise,” “very limited expertise,” “working 
knowledge/enough to get by,” “advanced knowledge,” 
and “tremendous expertise”). Neither “no expertise” nor 
“very limited expertise” garnered the highest number of 
responses for any of the skills. The overall rating average 
of all thirteen skills was 3.79 out of 5. The skills with the 
highest rating averages were “metadata creation/catalog-
ing” 4.4 and “digital imaging/document scanning/post 
image processing/photography” with 4.27. The skills 
with the lowest rating averages were “marketing and 
promotion” with 2.95 followed by “multimedia formats” 
with 3.33. 

The UNLV Libraries’ white paper contained several 
appendixes that likely provided some of the richest 
content of the white paper. With the educational thrust 
completed, the appendixes drew a roadmap of “where do 
we want to go from here?” This roadmap suggested the 
revitalization of an overarching Digital Projects Advisory 
Committee, potential members of the committee, and 
functions of the committee. The committee would be 
responsible for soliciting and prioritizing ideas and track-
ing the progress of approved ideas to publication. The 
appendixes also proposed project teams (which would 
exist for each project), likely members of the project 
teams, and the functions of the project team to complete 
day-to-day digitization activities. The liaison between 
the Digital Projects Advisory Committee and the project 
team would be the digitization projects librarian, who 
would always serve on both. The last page of the white 
paper provided an illustration highlighting the various 
steps proposed in the lifecycle of a digital project—from 
concept to reality. 

n Digitization workshops
Several months after the white paper had been shared, 
the next step in restructuring the program and building 
momentum was sponsoring two forums on digitization. 
The first one occurred in November 2006 and included 
two speakers brought in for the event, Roy Tennant 
(formerly user services architect with the California 
Digital Library and now with OCLC) and Ann Lally 
(head of the Digital Initiatives program at the University 
of Washington Libraries). This session consisted of a 



SuCCESS FaCTorS aND STraTEGiC plaNNiNG  |  laMpErT aND VauGHaN   121

two-hour presentation and Q&A to which all library 
staff were invited, followed by two breakout sessions. 
All three sessions were moderated by the digitization 
projects librarian. Questions from these sessions are pro-
vided in appendix C. The breakout sessions were each 
targeted to specific departments in the UNLV Libraries. 
The first focused on providing access to digital collec-
tions (definitions of digital libraries, standards, designing 
useful metadata, accessibility and interoperability, etc.). 
The second focused on components of a well-built digital 
library (goals of a digitization program, content selection 
criteria, collaboration, evaluation and assessment, etc.). 
Colleagues from other libraries in Nevada were invited, 
and the forum was well attended and highly praised. 
The sessions were recorded and later made available on 
DVD for library staff unable to attend. This initial forum 
accomplished two important goals. First, it was an all-
staff meeting offering a chance to meet, explore ideas, and 
learn from two well-known experts in the field. Second, it 
offered a more intimate chance to talk about the technical 
and philosophical aspects of a digitization program for 
those individuals in the UNLV Libraries associated with 
such tasks. As a momentum-building opportunity for the 
digitization program, the forum was successful. 

The second workshop occurred in April 2007. To gain 
initial feedback on several digitization questions and to 
help focus this second workshop, we sent out a survey 
to several dozen library staff—those that would likely 
play some role at some point in the digitization program. 
The survey contained questions focused on several the-
matic areas: defining digital libraries, boundaries to the 
digitization program, users and audience, digital project 
design, and potential projects and ideas. It contained 
thirteen questions consisting of open-ended response 
questions, questions where the respondent ranked items 
on a five-point scale, and “select all that apply”–type 
questions. We distributed the survey to invitees to the 
second workshop, approximately three dozen individu-
als; of those, eighteen (about 50 percent) responded to 
most of the questions. The survey was closely tied to the 
white paper and meant to gauge early opinions on some 
of the questions posed by that paper. Whereas the first 
workshop included some open Q&A, the second ses-
sion was structured as a hands-on workshop to answer 
some of the digitization questions and to illustrate the 
complexity of prioritizing projects. The second workshop 
began with a status update on the retooling of the UNLV 
Libraries’ digitization program. This was followed by an 
educational component that focused on a diagram that 
detailed the workflow of a typical digitization project 
and who was involved and that emphasized the fact that 
there is a lot of planning and effort needed to bring an 
idea to reality. In addition, we discussed project types 
and how digital projects can vary widely in scope, con-
tent, and purpose. Finally, we shared general results from 

the aforementioned survey to help set the stage for the 
structured hands-on exercises. The outline for this second 
workshop is provided in appendix D.

One question of the UNLV Library Digitization Survey 
asked, “on a scale of 1 to 5, how important are each of the 
factors in weighing whether to proceed with a proposal 
for a new digital collection project, or enhancement of an 
existing project?” Eight factors were listed, and the five-
point scale was used (from one to five: “not important,” 
“less important,” “neutral,” “important,” and “vitally 
important”). The average rating for all eight factors was 
3.66. The two most important factors were “collection 
includes unique items” (4.49 average rating) and “col-
lection includes items for which there is a preservation 
concern or to make fragile items more accessible to the 
public” (3.95 average rating). The factors with the lowest 
average ratings were “collection includes integration of 
various media into a themed presentation” (2.54 average 
rating) followed by “collection involves a whole run of an 
information resource (i.e., such as an entire manuscript, 
newspaper run, etc.” (3.39 average rating). The earlier 
ARL survey asked a somewhat related question, “What 
is/has been the purpose of these digitization efforts? 
Check all that apply.” Of the six possible responses 
(which differed somewhat from those in the UNLV 
Library Digitization Survey), the most frequent responses 
were “improved access to library collections,” “support 
for research,” and “preservation.”17 The earlier survey 
also asked the question, “What are the criteria for select-
ing material to be digitized? Check all that apply.” The 
most frequent responses were “subject matter,” “mate-
rial is part of a collection being digitized,” and “rarity or 
uniqueness of the item(s).”18

The first exercise of the second digitization workshop 
focused on digital collection brainstorming. The authors 
provided a list of ten project examples and asked each of 
the six tables (with four colleagues each) to prioritize the 
ideas. Afterward, a speaker from each table presented 
the prioritizations and defended their rankings. This 
exercise successfully illustrated to peers in attendance 
that different groups of people have different ideas about 
what’s important and what constitutes prime materials 
for digitization. The rankings from the varying tables 
were quite divergent. A related question asked of the ARL 
libraries in the UNLV Library Digitization Survey was 
“from where have ideas originated for existing, published 
digital collection at your library?” and offered six choices. 
Respondents could mark multiple items. The most chosen 
answer (92.7 percent) was “special collections, archives, 
or library with a specialized collection or focus.” The 
least chosen answer (51.2 percent) was “an external 
donor, friend of the library, community user, etc.” For the 
second part of the workshop exercise, each table came 
up with their own digital collection ideas, defined the 
audience and content of the proposal, and defended and 



122   iNForMaTioN TECHNoloGY aND liBrariES  |  SEpTEMBEr 2009

explained why they thought these were good proposals. 
Fourteen unique and varied ideas were proposed, most 
of which were tightly focused on Las Vegas and Nevada, 
such as “History of Las Vegas,” “UNLV Yearbooks,” “Las 
Vegas Gambling and Gamblers,” and “African American 
Entertainers in Las Vegas.” Other proposals were less 
tied to the area, such as a “Botany Collection,” “Movie 
Posters,” “Children’s Literature,” “Architecture,” and 
“Federal Land Management.” This exercise successfully 
showed that ideas for digital collections stretch across a 
broad spectrum, as broad as the individual brainchilden 
themselves. 

Finally, in the last digitization workshop exercise, 
each table came up with specialties, roles, and skills of 
candidates who could potentially serve on the proposed 
committee, and defended their rationale—in other words, 
committee success factors. This exercise generated nine-
teen skills seen as beneficial by one or more of the group 
tables. At the end of the workshop, we asked if others 
had alternate ideas to the proposed committee. None sur-
faced, and the audience thought such a committee should 
be reestablished. This second workshop concluded with 
a brief discussion on next steps—drafting a charge for the 
committee, choosing members, and a plug for the expec-
tation of subject liaisons working with their respective 
areas to help better identify opportunities for collabora-
tion on digital projects across campus. 

n Toward the future
Digital projects currently maintained by the UNLV 
Libraries include both static Web exhibits in the tra-
dition of UNLV’s first digitization efforts, as well as 
several searchable CONTENTdm–powered collections. 
The UNLV Libraries have also sought to continue col-
laborative efforts, participating as project partners for 
the Western Waters Digital Library (phase 1) and continu-
ing in a regional collaboration as a hosting partner in 
the Mountain West Digital Library. Partnerships were 
shown in the UNLV Library Digitization Survey to 
garner increased buy-in for projects, with one respon-
dent commenting that faculty partnerships had been 
“the biggest factor for success of a digital library proj-
ect.” Institutional priorities at UNLV Libraries reflect 
another respondent’s comment regarding “interesting 
archival collections” as a success factor. One recently 
launched UNLV collection is the Showgirls collection 
(2006), focused on a themed collection of historical mate-
rial about Las Vegas entertainment history.19 Another 
recently launched collection, the Nevada Test Site Oral 
History Project (2008), recounts the memories of those 
affiliated with and affected by the Nevada Test Site dur-
ing the era of Cold War nuclear testing and includes 

searchable transcripts, selected audio and video clips, 
and scanned photographs and images.20 

With general library approval, the restructured 
Digitization Projects Advisory Committee was estab-
lished in July 2007 with six members drawn from Library 
Technologies, Special Collections, the subject special-
ists, and at large. The advisory committee has drafted 
and gained approval for several key documents to help 
govern the committee’s future work. This includes a col-
lection development policy for digitization projects and a 
project proposal form to be completed by the individual 
or group proposing an idea for a digital collection. At the 
time of writing, the committee is just now at the point of 
advertising the project proposal form and process, and 
time will tell how successful these documents prove. 
In the UNLV Library Digitization Survey, 65.4 percent 
responded that a digitization mission statement or collec-
tion development policy was in place at their institution. 
One goal at UNLV is to “ramp up” the number of simul-
taneous digitization projects underway at any one time at 
UNLV. Many items in the Special Collections are ripe for 
digitization. Many of these are uncataloged, and digitiz-
ing such collections would help promote these hidden 
treasures. Related to ramping up production, one UNLV 
Library Digitization Survey question asked, “on average 
over the past three years, approximately how many new 
digital collections are published each year?” Responses 
ranged from zero new collections to sixty. The average 
number of new collections added each year was 6.4 for 
the 32 respondents who gave exact numerical answers. 
While this is perhaps double the UNLV Libraries’ current 
rate of production, it illustrates that increasing produc-
tion is an achievable goal.

Staffing and funding for the UNLV Libraries’ digitiza-
tion program have both seen increases over the past several 
years. A new application developer was hired, and a new 
graphics/multimedia specialist filled an existing vacancy. 
Together, these staff have helped with projects such as 
modifying CONTENTdm templates, graphic design, and 
multimedia creation related to digital projects, in addition 
to working on other Web-based projects not necessarily 
related to the digitization program. Another position has 
a job focus shifted toward usability for all things Web-
based, including digitization projects. In terms of funding, 
the two most recent projects at the UNLV Libraries are 
both the result of successful grants. The recently launched 
Nevada Test Site Oral History Project was the result of 
two grants from the U.S. Departments of Education and 
Energy. Subsequently, a $95,000 LSTA grant proposal seek-
ing to digitize key items related to the history of southern 
Nevada from 1900 to 1925 was funded for 2008–9, with 
the resulting digital collection publicly launched in May 
2009. This collection, Southern Nevada: The Boomtown Years, 
contains more than 1,500 items from several institutions, 
focused on the heyday of mining town life in Southern 



SuCCESS FaCTorS aND STraTEGiC plaNNiNG  |  laMpErT aND VauGHaN   123

Nevada during the early twentieth century.21 This grant 
funded four temporary positions: a metadata specialist, 
an archivist, a digital projects intern, and an education 
consultant to help tie the digitized collection into the K–12 
curriculum. 

Grants will likely play a large role in the UNLV 
Libraries’ future digitization activities. The UNLV 
Library Digitization Survey asked, “Has your institu-
tion been the recipient of a grant or gift whose primary 
focus was to help efforts geared toward digitization of 
a particular collection or to support the overall efforts 
of the digitization program?” The question sought 
to determine if grants had played a role, and if so, 
whether it was primarily large grants (defined as > 
$100,000), small grants (< $100,000), or both. The major-
ity of responses (46.2 percent), indicated a combination 
of both small and large grants had been received in sup-
port of a project or the program. An additional 25.6 per-
cent indicated that large grants had played a role, and 
23.1 percent indicated that one or more small grants had 
played a role. Two respondents (5.1 percent) indicated 
that no grants had been received or that they had not 
applied for any grants. The earlier ARL survey asked 
the question, “What was/is the source of the funds for 
digitization activities? Check all that apply.” Of seven 
possible responses, “grant” was the second most fre-
quent response, trailing only “library.”22

With an eye toward the future, the survey adminis-
tered to ARL libraries asked two blunt questions sum-
marizing the overall thrust of the survey. One of the 
final open-ended survey questions asked, “What are 
some of the factors that you feel have contributed to 
the success of your institution’s digitization program?” 
Forty respondents offered answers that ranged from list-
ing one item to multiple items. Several responses along 
the same general theme seemed to surface, which could 
be organized into rough clusters. In general, support 
from library administration was mentioned by a dozen 
respondents, with such statements as “consistent inter-
est on the part of higher level administration,” “having 
support for the digitization program at an administra-
tive level from the very beginning,” “good support from 
the library administration,” “support of the dean,” and, 
mentioned multiple times in the same precise language, 
“support from library administration.” Faculty collabo-
ration and interest across campus was mentioned by ten 
respondents, evidenced by statements such as “strong 
collaboration with faculty partners,” “support of faculty 
and other partners,” “interest from faculty,” “heavily 
involving faculty in particular . . . ensures that we can 
have continued funding since the faculty can lobby the 
Provost’s office,” and “grant writing partnerships with 
faculty.” Passionate individuals involved with the pro-
gram and/or support from other staff in the libraries 
were mentioned by ten respondents, with comments 

such as “program management is motivated to achieve 
success,” “a strong department head,” “individual staff 
member ’s dedication to a project,” “commitment of the 
people involved,” “team work, different departments 
and staff willing to work together,” and “supportive 
individuals within the library.” Having “good” content 
to digitize was mentioned by seven respondents, with 
statements such as “good content,” “collection strength,” 
“good collections,” and “availability of unique source 
materials.” Strategic plan or goals integration was men-
tioned in several responses, such as “strong financial 
commitment from the strategic plan” and “mainstream-
ing the work of digital collection building into the stra-
tegic goals of many library departments.” Successful 
grants and donor cultivation were mentioned by four 
respondents. Other responses were more unique, such 
as one respondent’s one-word response—“luck”—and 
other responses such as “nimbleness, willingness, and 
creativity,” and “a vision for large-scale production, and 
an ability to achieve it.”

The final UNLV Library Digitization Survey question 
asked, “What are the biggest challenges for your institu-
tion’s digitization program?” Thirty-nine respondents 
provided feedback, and again, several variations on a 
theme emerged. The most common response, unsurpris-
ingly, “not enough staffing,” was mentioned by eighteen 
respondents, with responses such as “lack of support 
for staffing at all necessary levels,” “the real problem is 
people, we don’t have enough staff,” “limited by staff,” 
and “we need more full-time people.” Following this 
was (a likely related response) “funding,” mentioned 
by another nine respondents, with statements such as 
“funding for external digitization,” “identifying enough 
funding to support conversion,” “we could always use 
more money,” and, succinctly, “money.” Related to staff-
ing, specifically, six responses focused on technical staff 
or support from technical staff, such as “need more IT 
(information technology) staff,” “need support from 
existing IT staff,” “not enough application development 
staff,” and “limited technical expertise.” Prioritization 
and demand issues surfaced in six responses, with 
responses such as “prioritizing efforts now that many 
more requests for digital projects have been submit-
ted,” “prioritization,” “can’t keep up with demand,” 
and “everyone wants to digitize everything.” Workflow 
was mentioned in four responses, such as “workflow 
bottlenecks,” “we need to simplify the process of getting 
materials into the repository,” and “it takes far longer 
to describe an object than to digitize it, thus creating 
bottlenecks.” “Not enough space” was mentioned by 
three respondents, and “maintaining general library-
wide staff support for the program” was mentioned by 
two respondents. The UNLV Libraries will keep in mind 
the experiences of our colleagues, as few, if any, libraries 
are likely immune to similar issues.



124   iNForMaTioN TECHNoloGY aND liBrariES  |  SEpTEMBEr 2009

n Conclusions
The UNLV Library Digitization Survey revealed, not sur-
prisingly, that not all libraries, even those of high stature, 
are created equally. Many have struggled to some extent 
in growing and sustaining their digitization programs. 
Many have numerous published projects, others have 
few or perhaps even none. Administrative and fellow 
colleague support varies, as does funding. Additional 
questions remain to be tackled at the UNLV Libraries. 
How precisely will we define success for the digitization 
program? By the number of published collections? By 
the number of successful grants executed? By the num-
ber of image views or metadata record accesses? By the 
frequency of press in publications and word-of-mouth 
praise from fellow colleagues? Ideas abound, but no 
definitive answers exist as of yet. At the larger level, other 
questions are looming. As libraries continue to promote 
themselves as relevant in the digital age, and promote 
themselves as a (or the) central partner in student learn-
ing, to what degree will libraries’ digital collections be 
tied into the educational curriculum, whether at their 
own affiliated institutions or with K–12 in their own 
states as well as beyond? Clearly the profession is chang-
ing, with library schools creating courses and certificate 
programs in digitization. Discussions about the integra-
tion of various information silos, metadata crosswalk-
ing, and item exposure in other online systems used by 
students will continue. Library digitized collections are 
primary resources involved in such discussions. While 
these questions persist, it’s hoped that at a minimum, the 
UNLV Libraries have established the foundational struc-
ture to foster what we hope will be a successful digitiza-
tion program.

References

 1.  Institute for Museum and Library Services, “Status of 
Technology and Digitization in the Nation’s Museums and Librar-
ies 2002 Report,” May 23, 2002, www.imls.gov/publications/ 
TechDig02/2002Report.pdf (accessed Mar. 1, 2009).

 2. Institute for Museum and Library Services, “Status of 
Technology and Digitization in the Nation’s Museums and 
Libraries 2006 Report,” Jan. 2006, www.imls.gov/resources/
TechDig05/Technology%2BDigitization.pdf (accessed Mar. 1, 
2009).

 3. Rebecca Mugridge, Managing Digitization Activities, SPEC 
Kit 294 (Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 
2006): 11.

 4. Ross Housewright and Roger Schonfeld, “Ithaka’s 2006 
Studies of Key Stakeholders in the Digital Transformation in 
Higher Education,” Aug. 18, 2008, www.ithaka.org/research/
Ithakas%202006%20Studies%20of%20Key%20Stakeholders%20
in%20the%20Digital%20Transformation%20in%20Higher%20
Education.pdf (accessed Mar 1, 2009).

 5. Ibid.
 6. University of Nevada, Las Vegas University Libraries, 

“Jeanne Russell Janish, Botanical Illustrator: Landscapes of 
China and the Southwest,” Oct. 17, 2006, http://library.unlv 
.edu/speccol/janish/index.html (accessed Mar. 1, 2009).

 7. University of Nevada, Las Vegas University Librar-
ies, “Early Las Vegas,” http://digital.library.unlv.edu/early_
las_vegas/earlylasvegas/earlylasvegas.html (accessed Mar. 1, 
2009).

 8. Arlitsch, Kenning, and Jeff Jonsson, “Aggregating Distrib-
uted Digital Collections in the Mountain West Digital Library 
with the CONTENTdm Multi-site Server,” Library Hi Tech 23, no. 
2 (2005): 221.

 9. Institute for Museum and Library Services, “Status of 
Technology and Digitization in the Nation’s Museums and 
Libraries 2006 Report.”

 10. Michael Boock and Ruth Vondracek, “Organizing for 
Digitization: A Survey,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 6, no. 
2 (2006), http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_
the_academy/v006/6.2boock.pdf (accessed Mar. 1, 2009). 

 11. Mugridge, Managing Digitization Activities, 12.
 12. Institute for Museum and Library Services, “Status of 

Technology and Digitization in the Nation’s Museums and 
Libraries 2006 Report.”

 13. Brad Eden, “Managing and Directing a Digital Proj-
ect,” Online Information Review 25, no. 6 (2001), www.emerald 
insight.com/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?contentType=Article& 
Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/
Pdf/2640250607.pdf (accessed Mar. 1, 2009).

 14. Mugridge, Managing Digitization Activities, 32–33.
 15. Boock and Vondracek, “Organizing for Digitization: A 

Survey.” 
 16. University of Nevada, Las Vegas University Librar-

ies, “University Libraries Strategic Goals and Objectives,” 
June 1, 2005, www.library.unlv.edu/about/strategic_goals.pdf 
(accessed Mar. 1, 2009).

 17. Mugridge, Managing Digitization Activities, 20.
 18. Ibid, 48.
 19. University of Nevada, Las Vegas University Librar-

ies, “Showgirls,” http://digital.library.unlv.edu/showgirls/ 
(accessed Mar. 1, 2009).

 20. University of Nevada, Las Vegas University Libraries, 
“Nevada Test Site Oral History Project,” http://digital.library 
.unlv.edu/ntsohp/ (accessed Mar. 1, 2009).

21. University of Nevada, Las Vegas University Librar-
ies, “Southern Nevada: The Boomtown Years,” http://digital 
.library.unlv.edu/boomtown/ (accessed May 15, 2009).

22. Mugridge, Managing Digitization Activities, 40.



SuCCESS FaCTorS aND STraTEGiC plaNNiNG  |  laMpErT aND VauGHaN   125

APPENDIx A. UNLV library digitization survey responses

 1. Is the digitization program or digitization activities referenced in your library’s strategic plan?

Answer Options (41 responses total) Response 
Percent

Response 
Count

Yes 63.4 26

No 7.3 3

Not specifically, but implied 22.0 9

Our library doesn’t have a strategic plan 7.3 3

 2. How would you characterize current support for digitization by your library’s administration?

Answer Options (42 responses total) Response 
Percent

Response 
Count

Very strong support, top priority 31.0 13

Consistently supportive 40.5 17

Neutral 14.3 6

Minimal support, 7.1 3

Very little support, or some resistance 7.1 3

 3. How would you characterize support for digitization in your library by the majority of those providing content for 
digitization projects (i.e., regardless of whether those providing content have as a primary or a minor responsibility 
provisioning content for digitization projects)?

Answer Options (44 responses total) Response 
Percent

Response 
Count

Very strong support, top priority 15.9 7

Consistently supportive 65.9 29

Neutral 13.6 6

Minimal support 2.3 1

Very little support, or some resistance 2.3 1



126   iNForMaTioN TECHNoloGY aND liBrariES  |  SEpTEMBEr 2009

 4. What year do you feel your library published its first “major” digital collection? Major is defined as this was the 
first project deemed as having permanence and which would be sustained; it has associated metadata, etc. If you 
do not know, you may estimate or type “Unknown.”

Responses ranged from 1990 to 2007.

 5. To date, approximately how many digital collections has your library published? (Please do not include ephemeral 
exhibits that may have existed in the past but no longer are present or sustained.)

Responses ranged from 1 to 1,000s. The great majority of responses were under 100; four responses were between 100 
and 200, and one response was “1,000s.”



SuCCESS FaCTorS aND STraTEGiC plaNNiNG  |  laMpErT aND VauGHaN   127

 6. On average over the past 3 years, approximately how many new digital collections are published each year?

All but two responses ranged from 0 to 10. One response was 13, one was 60. 

 7. What hosting platform(s) do you use for your digital collections (e.g., CONTENTdm, etc.)?

 8. Does your institution have an institutional repository (e.g., DSpace)?

Answer Options  
(41 responses total)

Response 
Percent

Response 
Count

Yes 73.2 30

No 26.8 11

 9. If the answer was “yes” in question 5, is your institutional repository using the same software as your digital  
collections?

Answer Options  
(30 responses total)

Response 
Percent

Response 
Count

Yes 26.7 8

No 73.3 22



128   iNForMaTioN TECHNoloGY aND liBrariES  |  SEpTEMBEr 2009

 10. Is there an individual at your library whose central job responsibility is the development, oversight, and manage-
ment of the library’s digitization program? (For purposes of this survey, central job responsibility means that 50 
percent or more of the employee’s time is dedicated to digitization activities.)

Answer Options  
(38 responses total)

Response 
Percent

Response 
Count

Yes 78.9 30

No 21.1 8

 11. Are there regular, full-time staff at your library who have as their primary or one of their primary job responsi-
bilities support of the digitization program? For this question, a primary job responsibility means that at least 20 
percent of their normal time is spent on activities directly related to supporting the digitization program or devel-
opment of a digital collection. (Mark all that apply)

Answer Options (39 responses total) Response 
Percent

Response 
Count

Digital imaging/document scanning, post-image 
processing, photography

82.1 32

Metadata creation/cataloging 79.5 31

Archival research of documents included in a 
collection(s)

28.2 11

Administration of the hosting server 53.8 21

Grant writing/donor cultivation/program or collection 
marketing

23.1 9

Project management 61.5 24

Multimedia formats 25.6 10

Database design and data manipulation 53.8 21

Maintenance, customization, and/or configuration of 
digital asset management software or features within 
that software (e.g., CONTENTdm)

64.1 25

Programming languages 30.8 12

Web design and development 71.8 28

Usability 25.6 10

Marketing and promotion 28.2 11

None of the above 2.6 1

 12. Approximately how many individuals not on the full-time library staff payroll (i.e., student workers, interns, field-
workers, volunteers) are currently working on digitization projects?

Answers ranged from 0 to “approximately 46.” The majority of responses (24) fell between 0 and 10 workers; twelve 
responses indicated more than 10; several responses indicated “unknown.” 



SuCCESS FaCTorS aND STraTEGiC plaNNiNG  |  laMpErT aND VauGHaN   129

 13. Has your library funded staff development, training, or conference opportunities that directly relate to your digi-
tization program and activities for one or more library staff members?

Answer Options (41 responses total) Response 
Percent

Response 
Count

Yes, frequently, one or more staff have been funded by 
library administration for such activities

48.8 20

Yes, occasionally, one or more staff have been funded 
by library administration for such activities

51.2 21

No, to the best of my knowledge, no library staff 
member has been funded for such activities

0.0 0

 14. Where does the majority of digitization work take place?

Answer Options (41 responses total) Response 
Percent

Response 
Count

Centralized in the library (majority of content digitized 
using library staff and equipment in one department)

48.8 20

Decentralized (majority of content digitized in multiple 
library departments or outside the library by other 
university entities)

12.2 5

Through vendors or outsourcing 7.3 3

Hybrid of approaches depending on project 31.7 13

 15. On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being least important and 5 being vitally important), how important are each of the factors 
in weighing whether to proceed with a proposal for a new digital collection project or enhancement of an existing 
project?

Answer Options  
(41 responses total)

Not 
Important

Less 
Important

Neutral Important Vitally 
Important

Rating 
Average

Response 
Count

Collection includes item(s) 
for which there is a 
preservation concern or to 
make fragile item(s) more 
accessible to the public

0 1 9 22 9 3.95 41

Collection includes  
unique items

0 0 1 19 21 4.49 41

Collection involves a whole 
run of an information 
resource (e.g., an entire 
manuscript, newspaper  
run, etc.)

2 5 11 21 2 3.39 41



130   iNForMaTioN TECHNoloGY aND liBrariES  |  SEpTEMBEr 2009

Answer Options  
(41 responses total)

Not 
Important

Less 
Important

Neutral Important Vitally 
Important

Rating 
Average

Response 
Count

Collection includes the 
integration of various  
media (i.e., images, 
documents, audio) into  
a themed presentation

7 11 17 6 0 2.54 41

Collection has a direct tie  
to educational programs 
and initiatives (e.g., 
university courses, 
statewide education 
programs, or K–12 
education)

3 3 6 17 12 3.78 41

Collection supports 
scholarly communication 
and/or management of 
institutional content

1 4 7 21 8 3.76 41

Collection involves a 
collaboration with  
university colleagues

1 3 9 18 10 3.83 41

Collection involves a 
collaboration with entities 
external to the university 
(e.g., public libraries, 
historical societies, 
museums)

2 4 11 19 5 3.51 41

 16. From where have ideas originated for existing, published digital collections at your library? In other words, have 
one or more digital collections been the brainchild of one of the following? (Mark all that apply)

Answer Options (41 responses total)
Response 
Percent

Response 
Count

Library subject liaison or staff working with teaching faculty  
on a regular basis

75.6 31

Library administration 65.9 27

Special Collections, Archives, or library with a specialized collection  
or focus

92.7 38

Digitization program manager 63.4 26

University staff or faculty member outside the library 68.3 28

An external donor, friend of the library, community user, etc. 51.2 21

(continued from previous page)



SuCCESS FaCTorS aND STraTEGiC plaNNiNG  |  laMpErT aND VauGHaN   131

 17. To whom are new projects first proposed to be evaluated for digitization consideration?

Answer Options (38 responses total)
Response 
Percent

Response 
Count

To an individual decision-maker 23.7 9

To a committee for review by multiple people 42.1 16

No formal process 34.2 13

 18. How are approved projects ultimately prioritized?

Answer Options (37 responses total)
Response 
Percent

Response 
Count

By a single decision-maker 18.9 7

By a committee for review by multiple people 54.1 20

By departments or groups outside of the library 0.0 0

No formal process 27.0 10

 19. Are digitization program mission statements, selection criteria, or specific prioritization procedures in use?

Answer Options (40 responses total)
Response 
Percent

Response 
Count

Yes, one or more of these forms of documentation exist  
detailing process

67.5 27

Yes, some criteria are used but no formal documentation exists 25.0 10

No documented process in use 7.5 3

 20. What general evaluation criteria do you employ to measure how successful a typical digital project is? (Mark all 
that apply)

Answer Options (39 responses total)
Response 
Percent

Response 
Count

Log analysis showing utilization/record views of digital  
collection items

69.2 27

Analysis of feedback or survey responses associated with the  
digital collection

38.5 15

Publicity generated by, or citations referencing, digital collection 46.2 18

E-commerce sales or reproduction requests for digital images 12.8 5

We have no specific evaluation measures in use 33.3 13



132   iNForMaTioN TECHNoloGY aND liBrariES  |  SEpTEMBEr 2009

 21. Has your institution been the recipient of a grant or gift whose primary focus was to help efforts geared toward 
digitization of a particular collection or to support the overall efforts of the digitization program?

Answer Options (39 responses total)
Response 
Percent

Response 
Count

We have received one or more smaller grants or donations (each of 
which was $100,000 or less) to support a digital collection/program

23.1 9

We have received one or more larger grants or donations (each  
of which was greater than $100,000) to support a digital  
collection/program

25.6 10

We have received a mix of small and large grants or donations to 
support a digital collection/program

46.2 18

We have been unsuccessful in receiving grants or have not applied 
for any grants—grants and/or donations have not played any role 
whatsoever in supporting a digital collection or our digitization program

5.1 2

 22. How would you rate the overall level of buy-in for collaborative digitization projects between the library and 
external partners (an external partner is someone not on the full-time library staff payroll, such as other university 
colleagues, colleagues from other universities, etc.)?

Answer Options (41 responses total)
Response 
Percent

Response 
Count

Excellent 41.5 17

Good 39.0 16

Neutral 4.9 2

Minimal 7.3 3

Low or None 0.0 0

Not applicable—our library has not yet published or attempted to publish 
a collaborative digital project involving individuals outside  
the library

7.3 3

 23. When considering the content available for digitization, which of the following statements apply? (Mark all that 
apply)

Answer Options (40 responses total)
Response 
Percent

Response 
Count

At my institution, there is a lack of suitable library collections for 
digitization

0.0 0

Content providers regularly contact the digitization program with project 
ideas

52.5 21

The main source of content for new digitization projects comes from 
Special Collections, archives, other libraries with specialized collections 
(maps, music, etc.), or local cultural organizations (historical societies, 
museums)

87.5 35



SuCCESS FaCTorS aND STraTEGiC plaNNiNG  |  laMpErT aND VauGHaN   133

Answer Options (40 responses total)
Response 
Percent

Response 
Count

The main source of content for new digitization projects comes from 
born digital materials (such as dissertations, learning objects, or faculty 
research materials)

32.5 13

Content digitization is mainly limited by available resources (lack of 
staffing, space, equipment, expertise)

47.5 19

Obtaining good content for digitization can be challenging 7.5 3

 24. Various types of expertise are important in collaborative digitization projects. Please rate the level of your local 
library staff’s expertise in the following areas (1–5 scale, with 1 having no expertise and 5 having tremendous 
expertise).

Answer Options 
(41 responses 
total)

No 
Expertise

Very 
Limited 

Expertise

Working 
Knowledge/
Enough to 
“Get By”

Advanced 
Knowledge

Tremendous 
Expertise N/A

Rating 
Average

Response 
Count

Digital imaging/
document 
scanning, 
post image 
processing, 
photography

0 1 3 21 16 0 4.27 41

Metadata 
creation/
cataloging

0 0 2 20 18 0 4.40 40

Archival research 
of documents 
included in a 
collection

0 2 6 15 16 2 4.15 41

Administration 
of the hosting 
server

1 2 7 16 15 0 4.02 41

Grant writing/
donor cultivation

1 4 13 13 8 2 3.59 41

Project 
management

0 1 9 23 8 0 3.93 41

Multimedia 
formats

0 5 21 10 4 1 3.33 41

Database 
design and data 
manipulation

0 4 9 14 13 1 3.90 41

(continued from previous page)



134   iNForMaTioN TECHNoloGY aND liBrariES  |  SEpTEMBEr 2009

Answer Options 
(41 responses 
total)

No 
Expertise

Very 
Limited 

Expertise

Working 
Knowledge/
Enough to 
“Get By”

Advanced 
Knowledge

Tremendous 
Expertise N/A

Rating 
Average

Response 
Count

Digital asset 
management 
software (e.g., 
CONTENTdm)

3 0 5 21 11 0 3.93 40

Programming 
languages

4 3 14 9 11 0 3.49 41

Web design and 
development

2 1 13 10 15 0 3.85 41

Usability 1 7 12 13 8 0 3.49 41

Marketing and 
Promotion

2 11 17 7 3 1 2.95 41

 25. What are some of the factors that you feel have contributed to the success of your institution’s digitization  
program?

Survey responses were quite diverse because respondents were speaking to their own perceptions and institutional expe-
rience. The general trend of responses are discussed in the body of the paper.

 26. What are the biggest challenges for your institution’s digitization program?

Survey responses were quite diverse because respondents were speaking to their own perceptions and institutional expe-
rience. The general trend of responses are discussed in the body of the paper.

APPENDIx B. White paper organization

 I. Introduction
 II. Current Status of Digitization Projects at the UNLV Libraries
 III. Topic 1: Program Planning

A. Are there boundaries to the Libraries digitization program? What should the program support?
B. What resources are needed to realize program goals?
C. Who is the user or audience?
D. When selecting and designing future projects, how can high-quality information be presented in online for-

mats incorporating new features while remaining un-biased and accurate in service provision?
E. To what degree do digitization initiatives need their own identity versus heavily integrating with the 

Libraries’ other online components, such as the general website?
F. How do the libraries plan on sustaining and evaluating digital collections over time?
G. What type of authority will review projects at completion? How will the project be evaluated and promoted?

 IV. Topic 2: Initiative Selection and Prioritization
A. Project Selection: What content criteria should projects fall within in order to be considered for digitization 

and what is the justification for conversion of the proposed materials?

(continued from previous page)



SuCCESS FaCTorS aND STraTEGiC plaNNiNG  |  laMpErT aND VauGHaN   135

B. Project Selection: What technical criteria should projects fall within in order to be considered for digitization?
C. Project Selection: How does the project relate to, interact with, or complement other published projects and 

collections available globally, nationally, and locally?
D. Project Selection and Prioritization: After a project meets all selection criteria, resources may need to be eval-

uated before the proposal reaches final approval. What information needs to be discussed in order to finalize 
the selection process, select between qualified project candidates, and begin the prioritization process for 
approved proposals?

E. Project Prioritization: Should we develop a formal review process?
 V. Topic 3: Project Planning

A. What are the planning steps that each project requires?
B. Who will be responsible for the different steps in the project plan and department workload?
C. How can the Libraries provide rich metadata and useful access points?
D. What type of Web design will each project require?
E. What type of communication needs to exist between groups during the project?

 VI. Concluding Remarks
 VII. Related Links and Resources Cited
 VIII. White Paper Appendixes

A. Working List of Advisory Committee Functions and Project Workgroup Functions
B. CONTENTdm Software: Roles and Expertise
C. Project Team Workflow
D. CONTENTdm Elements

APPENDIx C. First workshop questions

General questions

 1. How do you define a digital library? Do the terms “repository,” “digital project,” “exhibit,” or “online collection” 
connote different things? If so, what are the differences, similarities, and boundaries for each?

 2. What factors have contributed to a successful digitization program at your institution? Did anything go drastically 
wrong? Were there any surprises? What should new digitization programs be cautious and aware of?

 3. What is the role, specifically, of the academic library in creating digital collections? How is digitization tied to the 
mission of your institution? 

 4. Why digitize and for whom? Do digital libraries need their own mission statement or philosophy because they 
differ from physical collections? Should there be boundaries to what is digitized?

 5. What standards are most widely in use at this time? What does the future hold? Are there new standards you are 
interested in?

Technical questions, metadata questions

 1. What are some of the recommended components of digital library infrastructure that should be in place to support 
a digitization program (equipment, staff, planning, technical expertise, content expertise, etc?) 

 2. What are the relationships between library digitization initiatives, the library website, the campus website or por-
tal, and the Web? In what ways do these information sources overlap, interoperate, or require boundaries?

 3. How do you decide on what technology to use? What is the decision-making process when implementing a new 
technology?

 4. Standards are used in various ways during digitization. What is the importance of using standards, and are there 
areas where standards should be relaxed, or not used at all? How do digitization programs deal with evolving 
standards?

 5. Preservation isn’t talked about as much as it used to be. What’s your solution or strategy to the problem of preserv-
ing digital materials?

 6. Will embedded metadata ever be the norm for digital objects, or will we continue to rely on collection management 
like CONTENTdm to link digital objects to their associated metadata?



136   iNForMaTioN TECHNoloGY aND liBrariES  |  SEpTEMBEr 2009

APPENDIx D. Second workshop outline

 1. Introduction—purpose/focus of the meeting
A. To talk about next steps in the digitization program
B. Quick review of the current status and where the program has been
C. Serve to further educate participants on the steps involved in taking a project idea to reality
D. Goals for Participants: understand types of projects and project prioritization; engage in activities on ideas 

and prioritization; talk about process and discuss committee; open forum
 2. Staff Digitization Survey Discussion

A. “Defining Digital Libraries”
B. “Boundaries to the Digitization Program”
C. “Users and Audience”
D. “Digital Project Design”
E. “Potential Projects and Ideas” 

 3. First Group Exercise: Digital Project Idea Ranking and Defense of Ranking
 4. Second Group Exercise: Digital Project Idea Brainstorming and Defense of Ideas Brainstormed
 5. Concept/Proposal for a Digitization Advisory Committee
 6. Conclusion and Next Steps

Collections and design questions

 1. How do you decide what should be included in a digital library? Does the digital library need a collection develop-
ment policy and if so, what type? How are projects prioritized at your institution?

 2. How do you decide who your user is? Are digital libraries targeting mobile users or other users with unique needs? 
What value-added material compliments and enhances digital collections (i.e., item-level metadata records, guided 
searches, narrative or scholarly content, teaching material, etc.)?

 3. How should digital libraries be assessed and evaluated? How do you gauge the success of a digital collection, 
exhibit, or library? What has been proven and disproved in the short time that libraries have been doing digital 
projects? 

 4. What role do digital libraries play in marketing the library? How do you market your digital collections? Are there 
any design criteria that should be considered for the Web presence of digital libraries (should the digital library 
look like the library website, the campus website, or have a unique look and feel)?

 5. Do you have any experience partnering with teaching faculty to create digital collections? How are collabora-
tions initiated? Are such collaborations a priority? What other types of collaborations are you involved in now? 
How do you achieve consensus with a diverse group of collaborators? To what degree is centralization important 
or unnecessary?