 Welcome, everybody. I'm Cliff Lynch. I am the director of the coalition for networked information, and you are at one of the project briefing sessions for our virtual spring 2020 member meeting, which will run till the end of May. We will have three presenters today. Shayla Scott Webber from OCLC Gordon Danes from BYU who is also serving I believe is an ARL visiting program officer, and Adrian Turner from the California Digital Library. Each of the presenters is going to give a case study. And they're all tied together in that they are related to collection buildings, special collections, they're multi institutional in nature. And they all critically struggle with the problem of scale, which is becoming increasingly difficult and painful as our special collections multiply, particularly as we move more and more into the world of digital special collections. After the three presentations, we will have some Q&A, which Diane Goldenberg Hart from CNI will moderate. And there's a Q&A button at the tool at the bottom of your screen. Please feel free to use that to enter questions at any point during the three presentations as they occur to you. There's no reason to wait until we've finished all three of the presentations to get your questions in. Although we will, we will respond to them all at the end. And with that, I think that all that remains for me to do is to thank everyone for joining us and thank our three presenters again for sharing this work with us and to turn it over to Shayla. Over to you. Thanks Cliff. Appreciate it. And thanks for that nice introduction. We're all excited to be here and I'm excited to kick us off. So, hi everyone I'm Shayla Scott Weber. I'm a senior program officer with the OCLC research library partnership where I focus on work with archive special and distinctive collections. I'm excited to kick things off today like I said talking about the work that we've been doing with colleagues across the research library partnership institutions in our collection building an operational impacts working group. I'll start by providing a little background about how the group came to be and the issues we're trying to address. And then I'll share some details about the tools that we're creating. So, a bit of background. Research has a long history of work in the area of archive special and distinctive collections and research libraries. We work in special collections because we understand it to be an important site of knowledge creation made possible by the library's commitment to the stewardship of their distinctive collections. And we also recognize that the unique nature of material and special collections can make scaling a challenge. And so we work to identify areas of common need and patterns of innovation to help libraries scale learning and expertise with these collections. In October of 2017 we released the research and learning agenda for archive special and distinctive collections and research libraries. We work together via a really participatory community driven process and articulates the shared challenges and opportunities research libraries are facing in the sphere and suggest some approaches for working on them together. The agenda is guiding our work in OCLC research right now in this area and the work I'm going to be talking about today is is absolutely a part of that. So we see this work as responding to multiple needs laid out in the agenda. It calls out appraisal as being a key skill and activity and in this we mean archival appraisal of deciding what does and does not become a part of the collection. And it urges a renewed emphasis on an engagement with appraisal in our practice. It also called out stewardship responsibilities and collection management calls attention to our continued struggle with backlogs and living up to our collection management responsibilities. And it identifies appraisal as an important part of kind of a comprehensive approach to dealing with these responsibilities. Beyond appraisal we think the work addresses other issues raised in the agenda a desire for better tools and approaches to advocacy a need for it to engage in data collection to support reporting assessment and advocacy and valuing the labor that goes into responsible stewardship and care of collections. So this desire to think a little bit differently to really engage appraisal and think about differently about what bring we bring into our collections is happening against a backdrop I think of a shift or reconceptualization of value in archives and collections in the research library. And I don't need you to read all the words on this slide in fact please don't try. But it is illustrative of the way that we talk about our special collections and the way that we've traditionally used growth as a metric of value. So this is one of the options of archives and special collections at five different al era libraries and I promise you that I could have used a few dozen others instead that look very similar. Nearly all of us speak about our collections in this way using size and growth as a shorthand for value and prestige. Gordon's going to talk in a little bit about trying to create other metrics of value for special collections but now I'm going to keep talking about collection size. So the way that OCLC research did of special collections and research libraries indicated a 50% growth rate of special collections and arrow libraries between 1998 and 2009. A 2015 survey by McCann and Priddle indicated that 81% of responding arrow libraries are using offsite storage for their special collections. The 2009 OCLC report indicated that 50% of archival holding 68% of map holding 75% of visual materials and 15% of printed materials in our special collections did not have online catalog records. Certainly some, some of this has changed in the ensuing decade, and we don't have more current data but I'm working on it. I feel reasonably confident that many institutions might have better baseline control of their backlogs but still struggle with backlogs of ununderscribed collections. And that even with significant growth in collections, we are recognizing that our collections are not are largely not at all diverse, equitable or representative. There's an increasing interest to try to remedy that through approaches like post custodial collecting, working with community archives and creating oral history projects. All of these approaches require sustained relationship building and trust, which of course requires considerable time and resources. So to do the kind of collecting and relationship building we want to do and to live up to the expectations and promises we make to donors, and to make the rare and unique collections that we hold in trust broadly and equitably available. We have to understand the resources available not just to collect, but also to steward. One thing that we heard a lot about in creating the agenda is, and that we think is kind of a root of this problem is that the people tasked with making collection development decisions, and the people tasked with collection management responsibilities are often not sharing information we with each other at the points in the process that would support this kind of shared and holistic approach to collection building decisions. And we wanted to bring together people across a range of responsibilities to think about how to address this issue. And so we put out a call to the research library partnership. And we're fortunate that a really excellent group of people responded. And this is, these are all the folks who have been involved in the working group. And it includes a wide range of curatorial collection management and administrative roles in both academic and independent research libraries. And the work I'm sharing today is due to the efforts of everyone on this slide and I'm grateful to everyone for the time and work they're putting in, especially now. As things are upside down. So, so we put together some goals for the, for the working group to explore the intersections between collecting and collection management practice to try to find ways to better integrate collection management considerations in the collection development process. And again to bring together the colleagues across these important and interdependent functions. Because we wanted to help people better assess the sort of total cost of ownership of collections determine the operational impacts of bringing in collections, facilitate better communication, enable better decision making, and ultimately be able to better advocate for the necessary resources to steward our collections. One of the first things that the working group did was do a workflow analysis and this is the like ugly WebEx whiteboard from that meeting. And I don't, again I don't need you to read all of it but what we did was we sort of laid out the or the collection lifecycle from from pre acquisition to ongoing stewardship and identified points of decision making of communication of appraisal and places where we needed to think about resources like labor and cost, and the green and red checkmarks indicate a place where we needed to think about those things. And as, as you can see, this work basically made us realize that these kinds of decisions and need for communication happens everywhere across the whole process. And, and happens iteratively over time. It also helped to bring into relief the many factors and people involved in the process in these processes. As well as the potential for communication breakdowns. And so as we began to think about these issues and especially where they intersect. We started to see a need for a more holistic approach to understanding the resource, the resources necessary. The cost of purchase but of a collection but for the ongoing, the ongoing cost of living up to our responsibilities to donors and creators and researchers. You've likely heard the, the, the term total cost of ownership. It's used especially I think in talking about the true cost of open source software but it's a useful construct. It's not a sort of buyer owner determined a direct and indirect costs of a product or system. Total cost of ownership is basically the initial cost of purchasing something plus the cost of ongoing operation and the necessary upgrades and maintenance and though these costs might take some specialized knowledge to estimate it's a pretty straightforward equation. We're getting forward a slight modification to that idea, because things are less clear cut when we're talking about acquiring archival and special collections so we propose thinking about a total cost of stewardship model that takes into account the direct costs like purchase price, the ongoing operational costs of stewardship like cataloging processing and decision making, and also ways the less tangible values. That a collection might bring like value to research teaching and knowledge creation, the value of community relationships or institutional prestige that bringing in a collection can build. And so when we talked about what we wanted to create. It was clear that we needed to produce not just a white paper report as we often do and will, but also wanted to create a suite of tools that would help us. So to help support communication across all of the people and and and factoring in all those different points in the life cycle where decisions communication and resource allocation and key. And so we've produced two different kinds of tools, cost estimation tools to facilitate to facilitate or resource estimation tools to facilitate the tangible costs of addressing collection needs. And communication tools to facilitate discussion of both the tangible and the intangible factors that are weighed in collection decisions. And these tools are really in our attempt to express and operationalize this total cost of ownership approach or excuse me total cost of stewardship approach. And so I'm briefly going to walk you through the tools. And I'll start with the resource estimation tools. They are their spreadsheets to be clear, but they're interactive and they're customizable so they're a framework for for you to put in information about your own institution and your own costs and capacities. We created time estimation worksheets for trying to figure out the time that it might take to the catalog or process archival or rare book collections. And something we're calling the operational impact estimator for estimating both costs and the impact to your annual capacity to do this kind of work. So the worksheets take existing time estimation frameworks like University of Florida Florida's cataloging levels, or the UC libraries levels of archival archival processing and turn them into actionable spreadsheets. This gives you the ability to get a quick sense of the work that might be necessary to catalog or process a collection, and what the different levels of effort and detail might mean in terms of hours. They are also really useful communication tool. And, and the, and the general sense of time necessary that you can get here can be then used in the operational impact estimator. So the operational impact estimator is built to do two things to, to let you have a sense of what your capacity or annual capacity to do collections work is, and then to look at a potential acquisition against that capacity and and see both the costs would be and also the capacity impacts would be. So it starts by letting you define the staff roles and associated salaries for everyone who works on collection management activities. It then lets you allocate define the percentages of time the specific roles allocate to collection management activities. And then gives you the opportunity to kind of walk through the collection lifecycle from pre acquisition through ongoing stewardship and to estimate the necessary activities the time they might take and who might be involved in them. And then finally, it, it takes all the data from your first three tabs and, and puts it together to give you an estimate of the capacity impact. It both gives you a total something like here, it's between roughly three and 7% of your impact but it might be different for different roles it might impact one role, much more highly than than another. And so this so and the data that we can gather through these resource estimation tools can then be taken and used as a part of our communication tools. So, sorry, no, just about at time our communication tools. And share and record and share information about tangible costs. Like price of purchase and cataloging and processing hidden costs trying to identify factors that might cause extra work like indeed for extensive HIPAA or legal or legal review and as to donors that might be administratively different, difficult to operationalize AV or born digital formats that would require special equipment that the institution doesn't have. And then the intangible value of alignment with collecting scope institutional mission and goals potential research value of a collection or again, that's sort of the what the value that comes from building relationships with communities. So we surveyed the landscape and ended up creating four templates to aid in bringing this kind of knowledge together and support shared informed decision making conversations to communicate potential value potential acquisition proposal and a digitization project proposal, and then to communicate necessary resources and archival processing plan and something we're calling an operational impact report. So what's next you might be asking how can I get my hands on these so that my staff will be high fiving each other, like my icon here. We're working right now on revising the tool suite based on responses that we got via community feedback that were really tremendously helpful and valuable. And we'll be releasing the report and the tool suite at some point in the fall. Our timeline is a little tentative right now because of everybody's because of the uncertainty of the moment. But we stay tuned for communication about it, broad communication about it when it's ready to go. So thanks. And I'll turn it over to Gordon. Gordon, I think you're muted. Gordon. Okay, there we go. Sorry about that. So I'm my name is Gordon Danes, and I'm a visiting program officer with the Association of Research Libraries. And I'm going to talk about a project that I'm currently involved with with the Association of Research Libraries. And it's called the research library impact pilots. In particular, I'm going to be talking about the impact pilot project that deals with special collections and materials. So let me provide some basic information to frame the research library impact pilots in a general way, and then I'll talk specifically about the special collections project. So what are the research library impact pilots. Those of two separate categories of research and one is a research project, which is a formal original research study that's facilitated by ARL and engaged in by its member institutions. The second is a practice brief, which is a short document designed to support practitioners with research based information that improves library assessment. The assessment program visioning task force outlined a series of recommendations aimed at aligning the research and analytics work of the association with the goals and needs of its member institutions. One of the recommendations was to develop a library research library impact framework that describes an agenda for the exploration of library services, operations, impact and alignment with institutional mission and goals across four areas, and those four areas are research and scholarly life cycle teaching learning and student success collections and physical space. The framework provides the scaffolding for deeper exploration across multiple library service areas and serves as the foundation for the associations research agenda. Five research topics from the framework were identified as high priority by the ARL assessment committee in August of 2018. Their decisions and the identification was based on extensive feedback from ARL library directors and assessment practitioners. All of these topics are intended to help ARL members set the context for understanding and communicating the stories of the research library to external stakeholders and to provide the tools for members to tell this story locally. To external stakeholders we need funders partners and other collaborators. So the five research questions are, how does the library help to increase research productivity and impact. How do library spaces facilitate innovative research, creative thinking and problem solving. How does the library contribute to equitable student outcomes and an inclusive learning environment. How do the library special collections specifically support and promote teaching learning and research. And how do the library's collections play a role in attracting and retaining top researchers and faculty to the institution. My activity with the with ARL has surrounded this question, how do the library special collections specifically support and promote teaching learning and research. And how do we communicate the value that special collections bring in those areas to library directors and others. So I've been lucky enough to work with one practice brief team and two project teams. The practice brief team is Johns Hopkins University. The project teams one is at Western University of Ontario, and the other is a combination or a collaboration between the University of Pittsburgh and the University of California Irvine. And let me tell you a little bit about the different projects that they are working on. At Johns Hopkins University, they have developed a freshman fellows program. The program is an academic opportunity designed to introduce students to conducting research with rare books, manuscripts and archival material. They are in the fourth year of their freshman fellows program. And the first students that were part of the first group of fellows are now seniors. And their research project is designed to help them better understand the impact of the freshman fellows program on the students academic experience. They want to answer the question did having a meaningful deep experience with primary sources improve the overall academic experience at John that the students were having at Johns Hopkins. In order to gather this information the project team is conducting semi structured interviews with the four students and with the four curators who participated in the first year of the program. These interviews will be used to see how they're the students experience as a freshman fellow affected their academic experience. They will also be used to get the mentors perspectives on how their experiences may have affected how they teach novice researchers how to use primary source materials. At Western University of Ontario, their impact pilot project examines the use of archival special collections by Western's history department at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, as well as by faculty and postdoctoral researchers. Western's objectives are to understand the impact of their archival holdings and services on Western's history department. Understand why they serve certain members of the history department and not others and identify opportunities to serve non users of the archives. The University of Pittsburgh and the University of California Irvine are using a logic model to evaluate the effectiveness of the essay RBMS guidelines for primary source literacy. Each institution is taking a slightly different approach to their evaluations. The University of California Irvine is using its humanities core program, which is a year long undergraduate freshman course that gives students an introduction to the development of scholarly research through the use of primary and secondary source resources. They plan to compare in contrast how two forms of primary source workshops achieve initial learning outcomes. While both workshops administered by UCI will teach primary source literacy. One incorporates the principles and practices of community centered archives and includes primary source materials focused on underrepresented histories. Thus, in addition to testing the efficacy of the essay RBMS guidelines, UCI will examine the impact of incorporating more inclusive histories into the workshops on the learning outcomes of students. The UCI's project asks, when students see themselves represented in archives, do they experience an effective response that has an impact on how and what they learn in the primary source literacy workshops. They'll be gathering information using entrance and exit surveys in order to answer this question. The University of Pittsburgh, on the other hand, is looking at two programs. There are archival scholars research awards, or the ASRA program, which is an undergraduate scholarship award, and their primary source integration into classroom learning sessions. The team will strive to assess the initial and intermediate learning outcomes for these two specific programs. The ASRA program matches each student in a cohort with a librarian or archivist and a University of Pittsburgh faculty mentor to engage in in-depth research project. The University of Pittsburgh will also be using entrance and exit surveys and will use the research outputs or the papers and things produced by the students as part of their assessment. We're also looking at how effective their primary source literacy instruction is in the classroom based on the SA or the MS guidelines. Some ambitious projects from which we hope to learn quite a bit. So where are we now? As you can imagine, all of the projects have been impacted to varying degrees by the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of the projects have just slowed down or just a little bit behind in their timeline where other projects have completely stalled out. However, it's important to note all of the project teams remain invested in their projects and hope to complete them in a timely fashion as soon as they can. So let me give you a quick update on each of them. At Johns Hopkins University, they have conducted interviews with the freshman fellows and are in the process of reviewing their coding and general finding from those interviews with the freshman fellows. And later this month, they plan to do interviews with the curators using technology and then they will code those interviews and begin writing their practice brief from there. The University of Western Ontario is unfortunately their projects currently on hold. They've created a focus group interview guide and are in the process of planning to shift their focus groups and interviews to an online format. They're also waiting for final approval from their ethics review board. In the Pitt UCI collaboration, the University of California Irvine conducted 14 workshops for their humanities core courses and had actually just finished the last of their workshops before the university was shut down because of the COVID-19 pandemic. They've gathered 221 entrance surveys and 234 exit surveys that students completed as part of those workshops are in the process of preparing to analyze that data. The University of Pittsburgh recruited and secured commitment from nine of 10 archival scholar research award recipients to participate in their research study. They issued an entrance survey to those students. Then with the COVID-19 outbreak, they had to transition those as a student to a remote environment and have been working to facilitate their continued research and writing as part of the project. As their semester ends, they will be, as it's already ended, they have issued an exit survey and are beginning to take a look at the data gathered from the entrance and the exit surveys to see if they met the initial and intermediate student learning outcomes that they have identified based on the SAARVMS guidelines for primary source literacy and the ACRL framework for information literacy for higher education. So as data collection winds down, each of the teams will turn to data analysis. They hope to identify themes and outcomes that can be communicated to their respective administrations and that show the value of special collections and the use of primary sources and teaching. From ARL's perspective, we will be discussing the infrastructure that allowed the project teams to accomplish their work and how effective it was. We will also debrief with the project teams on the tools and methodologies that they used for their specific projects to see if those tools and methodologies could potentially be relevant in additional contexts. All of this with the goal in mind to develop research outputs that will help ARL member libraries to communicate impact and relevance of what the library does in ways that are understandable and relevant to budget holders and to stakeholders. So what are our next steps? For the project teams, it's to complete data collection, data analysis and report writing. For ARL, and particularly myself and the other visiting program officers, it's to review the supporting structures that we put into place for the project teams, the communication tools that we used, and to do a debrief on the tools and methodologies that the project teams used. We then hope to take all of that information and develop a toolkit of tools and methodologies that could potentially be used by other member institutions doing similar projects. This has been an exciting opportunity for me to be involved with ARL's research impact pilots. And we're hoping by April of 2021 to have begun gathering reports from the project teams and the practice brief teams that we will begin sharing at conferences and on the ARL website. Appreciate your time and I'll turn things over to Adrian. Hi everyone. My name is Adrian Turner. I'm a senior product manager at the California Digital Library and just wanted to say thanks again for taking time out today to attend our session. So I'm going to be providing an overview and an update on the tour to National Archival Finding Aid Network planning initiative. I'm going to refer to it as NAFAN. And it fundamentally relates to a service that my organization supports is the online archive of California, or OAC, and it relates to what we're envisioning as its future but more generally we're hoping that this could serve as a future vision for sizing up and scaling up finding aid aggregation to a national level and doing so in a more robust and sustainable manner than we've done in the past. So I'd like to first provide some grounding context for this planning initiative and how it relates to OAC. So the OAC was originally conceived in 1998 as a statewide aggregation of finding aids, narrative inventories and descriptions of collections that are held by libraries, archives and museums throughout California. And that's still really its primary function today. The last time we redesigned the OAC site was a while back so it was in 2009 and some of the underlying infrastructure even days back even earlier. So we've been in a place for a number of years now where we've wanted to rethink the OAC but before embarking on a redesign and refactor of the OAC site and the underlying architecture we thought this was a real timely moment to step back and reassess the scope and the sustainability of the service. And really start to think more expansively so not replicating its function as a statewide and really a siloed statewide aggregation but instead figuring out, you know, how we could provide more persistent and comprehensive access to finding aids at a national level. So of course open up the research potential to end users who could gain access to a much broader array of relevant collections. It could also provide us in terms of aggregators with opportunities to implement some more robust integrations between finding aids and related context, as well as related digital content that is being aggregated at scale within other systems. We suspected that other aggregators like us were starting to face mounting technical debt with their systems that were developed over the past 20 years, and we've always thought that there could be efficiencies to working collectively at a more macro level, especially if we could utilize and sustain a shared set of infrastructure. In late 2018, we received a year of LSTA funding administered through the California State Library to initially explore working with other regional and statewide aggregators. This idea of a national finding aid network and we'd really like to thank the California State Library for providing this crucial funding, and really also for providing long standing support over the years for statewide services such as OAC. So when we say aggregators, here's what we mean. There are about 15 aggregators currently within the U.S., and they all share very similar characteristics. So within a given state or region, they're ingesting and they're providing persistent hosting and publication of finding aids on behalf of their contributors. They're primarily hosting finding aids encoded in the EAD format, encoded archival description, but in some cases they're hosting finding aids in other formats such as mark records or even PDF files. In many cases, these aggregators are serving as the primary and de facto finding aid interface for their contributors. We also identified three meta aggregators and what we mean by that are programs or organizations that are harvesting or have harvested or indexed finding aid data or descriptions of archival context from aggregators as well as individual institutions. And within the U.S., the three primary meta aggregators are Archive Grid, the History of Medicine, Finding Aids, Consortium, and the Social Networks and Archival Context or SNAC program. We also reached out to representatives from organizations that are providing services that are fundamentally part of the archival description ecosystem or who have expertise in the areas of organizational development, community engagement, and sustainability. And I've listed the advisors there. We had several key objectives for this 2018 through 2019 planning initiative. First, we embarked on research to really analyze and understand the current landscape of finding aid aggregation within the U.S. Last summer we hosted a full day symposium with all the project partners and then finally we formulated an action plan to guide next steps and I'll go into a bit more detail on each of these objectives. So the first thing we did, we started out with research to get a sense of the current finding aid aggregation landscape and we published a report called Finding Aid Aggregation at Crossroads. I put a link here to the project site, which in turn points out to the report. There's a lot of detail and data in this report, some of the key findings among many aggregators have all increased the visibility and collection of collections that they're that they're pulling together as well as exposed connections between those collections. Aggregators, they're all they'll share ethics, a strong sense of ethics around providing open and equitable access to collections. And I think as we suspected going into this many aggregators are under resource so they're struggling in many ways to find sufficient resources to either sustain or update legacy platforms. Last summer we hosted a full day symposium at the UC Riverside Library with all the project partners and at the symposium, the meeting participants coalesced around in aspiration. So we all really think it's important to realize this vision for a national finding aid network under the circumstances, and we begin to formulate some next steps reaching towards that vision, which is a key outcome from this planning phase. It's an action plan, and we posted this action plan late last year. So, the action plan has three sections there's recommendations for phased near to longer term next steps that we can take moving now from now over the next four to five years that would basically help us move from a research and demonstration set of activities to a national program. It also has a high level description of the anticipated core functions of the finding aid network. And last it lays out the elements of a research agenda to get a current understanding of end user as well as contributor needs for for for this system. So going into a bit deeper in terms of what we're what we've envisioned as potential functions for this network. So we identified a handful of functional areas. So the first is the provision of tools, regional support outreach and training to enable really a much broader range of institutions to be able to participate in share finding a data. A second function is to serve as an extensive as well as continually updated registry of cultural heritage institutions with collections that are open for research, and any institution really should be able to be listed in this registry whether they have finding aids or not. So the registry data could include things like public service contact information a serve a summary of their collecting areas and holdings and so on, and that information so that should also be searchable and browsable in its own right. The third function is to serve as a persistent finding a publication platform. And it needs to be able to support finding aids in a range of different formats not limited to ed, there's still many barriers for institutions to be able to build an export and create ed finding aids. And it also needs to support frictionless processes for institutions to be able to share their finding a data with this network. So what we're envisioning is that the system would need to support harvesting and crawling sorts of scenarios for finding aids that do have a finding a publication system in place, as well as ingest based approaches where, again, the network is serving as sort of the de facto publication endpoint for their finding aids. The fourth function, of course, supporting discovery use and reuse of that finding a data and there's a lot of features were anticipating here and those features would really be prioritized based on the user needs that we identify from the research agenda. And last, the fifth function to support would be to support integration of finding a data with related context as well as content that's being aggregated at scale within other platforms, such as snack, or DPLA which is bringing together digital objects. It could also point to a local digital asset management systems. So I've summarized some of the immediate and near term steps that we identified in the action plan. There's a number of things that we specced out here, but we know we're going to need to and we're going to want to establish an initial and multi organizational set of partnerships to help move this thing forward and we're anticipating as a strong collaborative partnership. It's going to especially comprise aggregators but also organizations that are providing archival description services, such as developers of archival collection management systems. And there will be a lot of ways for individual libraries archives and museums to be able to support and provide input into the work along the way. As I mentioned earlier we anticipate the initial research and development work it's going to be kick started with grant funding as well as in kind contributions. We also want to ramp up engagement with the aggregator community as well as individual contributors to build a shared community of interest in realizing this vision. So throughout the gates we want to launch into a research agenda to again get a current read on and to validate end user as well as contributor needs for the system. And in tandem, we do want to do some technical research and evaluation of systems to support it to ensure we, you know, have solutions in place to be able to support harvesting ingest indexing or rendering of finding a data at scale so there's some technical analysis and prototyping work that we want to embark on. And last we have sustainability in mind from the start. So we want to launch into business and market analysis. We want to test the value proposition of a fully realized network against hypothetical operating costs. And really we want to scale this program based on the available resource inputs to sustain it so the idea going into this is kickstart with with with some grant funding support but ultimately it needs to be able to run on its own. So we now have an action plan and we want to implement it earlier this year we've convened follow up conversations with the community of finding eight aggregators. So convene had conversations with OCLC and the snack team at University of Virginia library, as well as the archive space team at lyricists to establish this collaborative framework to move forward on the action plan. And OCLC is really well situated to provide strong expertise and leading the research activities. We anticipate University of Virginia library which supports snack could support technical assessment and prototyping of systems. And of course this is of course, well situated to provide consultation on potential archive space integrations. And the community of finding eight aggregators would be involved in all these activities along the way to shape the functional requirements for the system as well as facilitating the sustainability and governance models that we know we're going to need moving forward. In addition to CDL we in turn, we intend to serve a convening role and we want to help coordinate this overall effort. Basically we want to redirect resources that we had otherwise put into a redesign or refactor of OCLC into this more national level vision. And so where we're at as of right now as we're in the process of seeking grant funding to kickstart these activities and our hope is we can embark on the work this fall or winter. And so with that I'll wrap up my talk I've put a link to the NAFAN project site which against again points to the reports and findings as well as the action plan. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the project and next steps and thanks again for attending our session. Thanks Adrian. And thank you to our other presenters chala and Gordon. I appreciate hearing that roundup of projects interesting things going on in this space. And thanks for coming to see and I to share them with us. At this time, I want to invite our attendees to type your questions into the Q&A box, and our panelists will be happy to answer those here live. I also have a chat box where I've included several links to more information about the presentations that you've heard here today. We will be posting all of our slides on the project briefing page which I chatted out to you as well as the video of this presentation. And once it is ready to go, which should be in just a few days. While we're waiting for folks to type up their questions. I just want to remind everyone that this webinar is part of CNI spring 2020 virtual membership meeting on going through the end of May. Thank you for coming with you in the chat box, direct link to the schedule for the rest of the meeting. There are plenty more offerings yet to come and we hope you'll check that out and join us again. We have another webinar this afternoon on expertise for AV collections access using machine learning on accessing AV collections, and many more to come. I don't see any questions in the Q&A box. I want to go ahead and invite any of our attendees who might like to make a comment. If you are working on any of these projects if you have questions about any of these projects. And type in your question or raise your hand I can unmute you and you can make a comment live or ask a question live. I was wondering, Adrian. Are you is your project still looking for partners. I know you're about to submit another proposal for funding. Is that right. Yeah, that's a great question. We've actually submitted a proposal for funding time less so fingers crossed. One of the core communities partners that we've really wanted to try to engage with and, you know, really ensure comprehensive participation is the X and aggregator community. So, so we're still having some conversations to try to ensure we're getting full coverage there. And yeah, we are envisioning that there will be a different sorts of working group structures as well as advisory input structures where we want to get a lot of feedback and input on this beyond just the aggregator community so All right so if you're interested in participating in the project. Feel free to reach out here now. Thanks so much to our attendees.