future of dspace - steering group panel at or14

Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

The Future of DSpace

Jonathan Markow, DuraSpaceTim Donohue, DuraSpace

Lieven Droogmans, @mireDebra Hanken Kurtz, Texas Digital Library

DSpace Steering Committee

• Debra Hanken Kurtz Texas Digital Library (TDL) -Chair• Richard Jizba Creighton University• David Lewis Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)• Stuart Lewis University of Edinburgh• Lieven Droogmans @mire• Ingrid Parent University of British Columbia (UBC)• Eloy Rodrigues University of Minho• Steve Gass MIT

• …Plus two at-large Member Representatives

Many Other Active Groups

• Dspace Committers• Distributed Contributors• DSpace Community Advisory Team

(DCAT)• Vision Group• DSpace Ambassadors• DSpace Sponsors – now Members!

Reminder: Vision

DSpace will:1.Focus on IR fundamentals, modern use

cases2.Be lean & flexible3.Include “core IR” functionality which can

be extended4.Be designed to integrate well5.Support low-cost, hosted

solutions

Survey Analysis & Planning

Draft Product Plan(ning)

• Team: 6 Committers & DCAT• Analysis: DSpace Vision Survey

“features importance ranking”– Feature categorization– Rough draft of use cases– Where do we stand on popular features?

• “Non-Functional” platform goals

http://tinyurl.com/dspaceplan

Survey Feature GapsBy Average Ranking

Mostly Met

Partially Met

Not Met

ALL FEATURES(34 total) Very Highly Ranked

(19 features)

Moderately High(15 features)

>7.5 avg out of 10

NOTE: Survey purposefully listed features & needs which we knew were not yet met.

5.0-7.5 avg out of 10

Highly Ranked Gaps…

• 4 most highly ranked, unmet needs:– Batch upload via UI– Relationships between objects*– Configuration via Admin UI– Template driven UI for easy branding

Very Highly Ranked(19 features)

Structural/Arch(7 features)

Stats/Metrics(4 features)

End User UI(9 features)

Admin UI(7 features)

Integrations(7 features)

Survey Feature Gaps byCategory

Non-Functional Goals

• DSpace should strive to:– Be Easy to Install– Be Easy to Upgrade– Be Scalable and have Good Performance– Be Attractive to New Developers– Be Attractive to New Repo Mgrs– Avoid maintaining duplicative codebases

Group felt these are important in maintaining a sustainable community product

Likely Project Scope

• Need *single* UI and to decrease duplicative code / functions– Current maintenance effort is high– Ongoing development effort is double

• Refactoring or rebuilding of codebase– Codebase & architecture is aging, needs

cleanup / enhancement– Again, decrease duplicative code

Group Recommendations

• Our “organic” development model is not good for significant work

• Organized/funded project needed– Hire a Product Manager– Full time Tech Lead

• Model to make Product decisions• Process to achieve our Product goals

Planning Process

Product Planning Process

Develop high level vision

Community survey

2

Product plan

3

Implementation options

4

Implementation plan

5

High level vision

1

wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/Product+Planning+Process

High Level Vision

Develop high level vision

Community survey

2

Product plan

3

Implementation options

4

Implementation plan

5

High level vision

1

• Set vision for DSpace:– Conducted recently.

– High Level.

• Updated every few years

Community Survey

Community survey

2

Product plan

3

Implementation options

4

Implementation plan

5

High level vision

1

• Goal:– Help validate the Vision and ensure it is in line with the needs of

the Community. 

• Use Cases will be refreshed based on the survey feedback.

Product Plan

Community survey

2

Product plan

3

Implementation options

4

Implementation plan

5

High level vision

1

• High-level plan based on:– most recent Product Vision– latest Survey and Use Cases.

• Approved by the Steering Group• Updated every year/release

• Determine implementation options• Meet the Product Plan's yearly goals. Decisions such as which third-

party tool or technology to recommend in order to meet a particular

use case/need.Approved by the Steering Group

• Updated every year/release

Implementation Options

Community survey

2

Product plan

3

Implementation options

4

Implementation plan

5

High level vision

1

Implementation Plan

Community survey

2

Product plan

3

Implementation options

4

Implementation plan

5

High level vision

1

• Executable plan:– Based on Product Plan and recommended Impl. Options

– Scheduling major features for major releases.

– NOTE: will include features/improvements contributed by the community. Combination of known community contributions and planned development.

• Updated every year/release

Governance

Governance Roles

Technology Team

Standing Working Groups

Governance Roles

Technology Team

Standing Working Groups

Working Together

Develop high level vision

Community survey

2

Product plan

3

Implementation options

4

Implementation plan

5

High level vision

1

•

Be Part of the Decision Making:Become a Member!

Questions / Comments?