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?