An identification of a model fordigital library critical success

factorsFatemeh Lagzian, Abdullah Abrizah and Mee Chin Wee

Faculty of Computer Science & Information Technology, University of Malaya,Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract

Purpose – A significant amount of digital repository research and development activity is takingplace worldwide, which calls for the investigation of issues identified as critical to the development,management and sustainability of these repositories. The purpose of this paper is to establish acomprehensive set of critical success factors (CSFs) that would enable successful digital librariesimplementation.

Design/methodology/approach – The design of this study is exploratory in nature due to lack ofprevious research about CSFs in digital library projects. The paper builds the research framework tofind CSFs for digital libraries initiatives by collecting possible factors from literature on CSFs ofinformation systems; and feedback from ten experts who have had experience in digital libraryresearch and development as well as implementation, through e-mail interviews. Six dimensions in theenterprise architecture framework (namely motivation, resource, people, process, location and time)needed to create the environment in which digital delivery can be effective and sustained, are mappedwith the CSF established from the literature.

Findings – The results revealed six dimensions of CSFs and 36 potential success factor statementscontributed by the study participants. Based on these findings, this paper postulates that successfuldeployment of a digital library implementation may depend on this set of success factors. Theidentification of these factors has important implications on digital library development.

Originality/value – There has been no comprehensive study on the success factors of digitallibraries in the library and information science context, as such, no investigation of the factors in somereal-life contexts of digital library activities. It may help digital library start-ups to understand whatsources and services they need to develop to make their applications successful in an already verypopulated network. Both researchers and practitioners in the field of digital libraries may value thenovelty and results of this study.

Keywords Digital libraries, Critical success factors, Digital library framework, Enterprise architecture

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThere is much discussion and examination of the factors that help build and sustain asuccessful digital library (DL). Previous research has shown that the success of a DLlies in its acceptance by the target audience (Shen et al., 2006; Dahlan et al., 2006; Thonget al., 2002). Some domain specific quality metrics for DLs have been proposed.Goncalves et al. (2007), on formalising the definition of DLs, specifies a set of qualitymetrics for DLs along with their precise definitions. Apart from sustained funding for

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0264-0473.htm

This research is conducted with the support of a UMRG grant (RG001/09ICT) from theUniversity of Malaya (UM). The authors are deeply grateful to the study participants for theirinvaluable contribution in this study.

Digital libraryCSFs

5

Received 24 February 2011Revised 5 June 2011

20 July 2011Accepted 31 July 2011

The Electronic LibraryVol. 31 No. 1, 2013

pp. 5-23q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0264-0473DOI 10.1108/02640471311299100

digital repositories, and hence its long-term viability (Westell, 2006), the key factorsthat may lead to successful implementation of DLs usually identified are that therepository is community-driven and community-focused (Gibbons, 2004); facilitatesscholarly communication and archiving (Xia and Sun, 2007); is easy to use andregularly used (Zuccala et al., 2008); provides a safe, long-term home for material(Lampert and Vaughn, 2009); and has institutional support and dedicated staff(Westell, 2006) and robust technological infrastructure (Lee, 2002).

To deploy DL projects successfully, library organisations need to know the keyfactors for successful DLs. The key factors can be critical success factors (CSFs), whichare simply defined as “factors” that are “critical” to the “success” of the organisation(Caralli, 2004). This concept was popularized by Rockart (1979) as “the limited numberof areas in which results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure successful competitiveperformance for the organisation”. CSFs, which are critical to an organisation’s currentoperating activities and to its future success (Guynes and Vanecek, 1996), commonlyexist for individual managers fulfilling the corporate strategy. Implementing emergingtechnologies can be risky if the CSFs have been researched insufficiently ordocumented inadequately. Extending CSFs under operating activities, Zahedi (1987)wrote that there are certain critical factors in information systems developmentprojects that if not met will lead to the failure of those projects.

While numerous studies have listed the CSFs for various types of informationsystems (IS), there is a lack of knowledge of the CSFs for ensuring successfulimplementation of DL projects. This work is mainly concerned with DLs as a specifickind of information system or service. For this purpose it is useful to refer to thedescription of DLs found in Borgman (2000), which defines DLs using three keycharacteristics that distinguish them from other systems:

. Functionality: It offers integrated services to a comprehensive digital collection ofcultural or scientific information that is available primarily for reading andsecondarily for expanding on, as well as annotating.

. Purpose: It is mainly used for learning and research.

. Lifetime: It provides access to information whose value is preserved across longperiods of time.

Furthermore, some of the features that Borgman particularly emphasized in DLinformation systems are: rich information needs, multiple sources of relatedinformation, heterogeneous information, rich data sources, multimedia information,defined user populations, motivated users, task-orientation, domain-orientation,cross-lingual access and collaboration.

For the purpose of this study, a DL is defined from the library and information science(LIS) perspective, set forth by the Digital Library Federation (DLF): “organisations thatprovide the resources, including the specialized staff, to select, structure, offer intellectualaccess to, interpret, distribute, preserve the integrity of, and ensure the persistence overtime of collections of digital works, so that they are readily and economically availablefor use for a defined community or set of communities” (Waters, 1998).

Building on previous work (Iagzian, 2010), the objective of this exploratory study isto identify possible success factors deemed important in the determination of DLimplementation outcomes. This is approached through a detailed assessment oftheoretical and empirical literature, and a preliminary case study of DL managers. The

EL31,1

6

combination of possible factors ascertained from literature analysis and interviewswith eminent experts in this area helps to develop an initial framework of digitallibrary CSF which will be tested empirically and will be iteratively revised. Inparticular, the study aimed to address the following research questions:

(1) What potential factors contribute to the successful implementation of digitallibraries?

(2) What are the quality markers that digital library practitioners use to signalsuccess in their digital library projects?

Literature reviewCSF studiesSeveral different CSF dimensions have emerged in the literature over the course of theyears. Rockart’s (1979) CSF approach is particularly relevant within the limits ofproject management and information systems (IS) implementation and therefore oftenused by IS managers. This is confirmed in a study conducted by Ramaprasad andWilliams (1998), in which the results from 263 responses indicate the major areas inwhich the CSF approach is utilized: project management (63.49 per cent), ISimplementation (49.21 per cent), and requirements (47.62 per cent).

Many researchers have attempted to develop a comprehensive list of CSFs forinformation technology (IT) project implementation such as knowledge management,e-learning, data mining, institutional repositories and Web 2.0 technologies. Culler (2009)examined relationships between the ten critical success factors and informationtechnology project performance. Selim (2007) identified e-learning CSFs as perceived byuniversity students and grouped the CSFs into four categories namely; instructor, student,information technology, and university support. White (2006) looked at the CSFs fore-learning and institutional change using two broad perspectives drawn from UK HigherEducation. The results revealed eight CSFs, namely training, technical support,information/knowledge, time, resources, colleague support/help, encouragement/rewardand funding. King (2001) highlighted the salient factors used by IT organisations to adoptInternet technology at different adoption period. The main objective of King’s study wasto determine the CSFs that influence early and late adopters of Internet technology. Theoverall result shows that there was significant difference between the adoption categoriesand five constructs (organisational compatibility, trading partner pressure, organisationalsupport, perceived direct benefits, and perceived in-direct benefits). In a study on theinfluence of organisational factors on Management of Information Systems (MIS) success,Rezaei et al. (2009) gathered data from 132 MIS from Iran’s Agricultural ExtensionProviders. Seven items were identified to influence MIS success in the survey; they are theIS department structure, top management support, management style, managerial ITknowledge, goal alignment, resource allocation and IS infrastructure.

Other IS areas that has been researched on CSFs is knowledge management (KM),data mining and Web 2.0 technologies. Hasanali (2002) grouped the CSFs into fiveprimary categories: leadership; culture; structure, roles, and responsibilities; informationtechnology infrastructure; and measurement. Chong (2006) identified that successfuldeployment of a knowledge management (KM) programme depends on 11 CSFs, namelyremoval of organisational constraints, employee involvement, teamwork, employeetraining, employee empowerment, top management leadership and commitment, ISinfrastructure, performance measurement, egalitarian (knowledge-friendly) culture, and

Digital libraryCSFs

7

benchmarking. Sim (2003) detailed the research framework and methodology thatidentified and validated seven CSFs of data mining projects, namely action, dataset,communication, output, business mission, consultation, and business environment. ACSF theoretical framework for Web. 2.0 technology has also developed by Isaias et al.(2009) as they opined that “with the widespread popularity of these applications itbecomes important to analyse the source of their success and unveil why some are moresuccessful than others”. The results revealed seven CSFs, namely User input, User’scritical mass figures, Ease of use of component, Availability of content to justify user’saccess, User content addition features, User content development tools, Revenue models.Similarly, Cochrane (2010) studied the experiences gathered from the 13 mobile learningprojects and the researcher identified pedagogical CSFs as emergent themes for mobileWeb 2.0 integration. The CSFs identified include: the importance of the pedagogicalintegration of the technology into the course assessment; lecturer modelling of thepedagogical use of the tools; the need for regular formative feedback from lecturers tostudents; and the appropriate choice of mobile devices and software to support thepedagogical model underlying the course.

CSF of digital services in librariesA key research question in examining the deployment of digital services in libraries hasalso been centred on determining the factors that lie behind a successful implementation.Lamont (1999) emphasised that the users, the staff, the administration are the criticalhuman factors in emerging library technology centres. Jayasundara (2004) in identifyingCSFs and the degree of user satisfaction towards the e-information service, which canassist university library to efficiently and effectively adopt e-learning technologies,observed four key areas of CSF: infrastructure, support, resources and patrons. Thesuccess factors in DLs however have been subjected to a limited amount of priorresearch. Zhao et al. (2010) in their discussion of different ideologies and criterions of DLsevaluation highlighted four success factors of DLs: performance, security, resource, user,management and maintenance. Thibodeau (2007) proposed a framework for organisinginformation needed to evaluate the success of digital repositories articulated along fivedimensions: service, orientation, coverage, collaboration, and state of development, basedon the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) reference model.

For their part, Goncalves and colleagues proposed a quality model for DLs whichcomprised a number of quality indicators for key formal DL concepts: catalog,collection, digital object, metadata specification, repository, and services (Goncalveset al., 2007). Yanchun and Jin (2009) presented the criteria for a good DL in undevelopedregions, namely: interface usability, collection quality, service quality, systemperformance, user satisfaction. Westell (2006) proposed the following indicators formeasuring the success of institutional repositories, i.e. a type of digital library:mandate; integration with planning; funding model; relationship with digitisationcentres; interoperability; measurement; promotion; and preservation strategy. Shefurther noted that user acceptance is also an important element of institutionalrepository success. Shearer (2003) described a study conducted by the CanadianAssociation Research Libraries (CARL) to determine some success factors ofinstitutional repositories. The researcher listed ten variables as CSFs: archivingpolicies, disciplines, advocacy activities, copyright policies, content type, staff support,quality control publicities, software, use, and organisational culture. Table I details the

EL31,1

8

studies conducted by these researchers in identifying the potential success factors orquality criteria to ensure the success of DL implementation.

Research methodIn order to identify the relevant CSF, a wide array of research methods can be used.Among them are for instance the realisation of case studies (Sumner, 1999), group

Researchers The purpose Methodology Success factors

Shearer (2003) To identify CSFs ofinstitutionalrepositories

Survey of ten membersof CARL InstitutionalRepositories PilotProject

10 CSF – Archivingpolicies, disciplines,advocacy activities,copy right policies,content type, staffsupport, quality controlpublicities, software,use, organizationalculture

Westell (2006) To propose indicatorsfor measuring thesuccess of institutionalrepositories

Web analysis ofselected Canadianuniversities who areparticipating in theCARL InstitutionalRepository

8 CSF – mandate;integration withplanning; fundingmodel; relationship withdigitisation centres;interoperability;measurement;promotion; andpreservation strategy

Goncalves et al. (2007) To propose indicatorsand their applications tokey DL concepts

Deals with theconnections betweenthe proposeddimensions andBorgman’s InformationLife and a focus-group-based evaluation

6 CSF – Catalog,collection, digital object,metadata specification,repository, and services.

Thibodeau (2007) To provide an abstractframe of reference forevaluating digitalrepositories

Development of anevaluation frameworkbased on the OpenArchival InformationSystem (OAIS)reference mode

5 CSF – service,orientation, coverage,collaboration, and stateof development

Yanchun and Jin (2009) To propose a number ofquality indicators forkey formal DL concepts

Connections with theInformation Life Cycleand focus-group-basedevaluation criteria ofthe model

5 Quality criteria:interface usability,collection quality,service quality, systemperformance, usersatisfaction

Zhao et al. (2010) To evaluate digitallibraries

Evaluation frameworkof analyzing thedifferent ideologies andcriterions of digitallibraries evaluation

5 CSF – performance,security, resource, user,management andmaintenance

Table I.Studies on the potential

success factors for DLimplementation

Digital libraryCSFs

9

interviews (Khandewal and Miller, 1992), structured interviews (Rockart and VanBullen, 1986), as well as the analysis of relevant literature (Esteves and Pastor, 2000).According to Shah and Siddiqui (2006) the most frequently used method to identifysuccess factors is the realisation of a questionnaire.

This study identifies success dimensions from the following three research processes:

(1) Analyses of literature to identify the possible DL success factors to help answerthe first research question: “What potential factors contribute to the successfulimplementation of digital libraries?”.The success factors obtained from the literature analysis are plugged into theEnterprise Architecture used in this study. It has been mentioned earlier thatthe Digital Library Federation regarded a DL as an “organization” (Waters,1998) or an enterprise that requires architecting (Abdullah and Zainab, 2008).The enterprise architecture involves examining business processes, people,operations, technology, software and hardware, local and wide area networksall that aligned with the organization’s objectives. Using the ZachmanFramework for Enterprise Architecture (Zachman, 2002) helps to explicitlyshow the many perspectives that need to be addressed by a DL as it requires theplanner, owner and designer of the DL to involve the stakeholders to ensure thatthe DL meets their needs and will be successfully used. This framework is usedto formulate the architecture for a DL that positions and ensures that thestandards for creating the information environment exist and they areappropriately integrated. The framework uses a grid model to provide a logicalstructure for classifying and organizing the descriptive representation of anenterprise, in six different dimensions, namely data (What), function (How),network (Where), People (Who), Time (When) and Motivation (Why). Thesedimensions are used as a basis to identify the success factors revealed in theliterature and to map them accordingly.

(2) Validation of possible factors from keyword frequency analysis.To verify the possible CSF items, keyword frequency analysis was performedfrom the following online repositories: ACM Digital Library; and Library andInformation Science Abstracts (LISA). A search of the ACM Digital Library andLISA databases returned a total of 2,829 and 2,731 articles containing thephrase “digital library” respectively.

(3) A pilot case study involving ten DL practitioners to gain insight on the signifiersof success in DL projects.In order to better understand managers’ perceptions of CSFs as they affect theoutcome of DL implementations, an e-mail interview was employed to solicitopinions on the signifiers of success in DL projects from DL experts living inscattered geographical locations. The objective of the e-mail interview is toanswer the second research question: “What are the quality markers that digitallibrary practitioners use to signal success in their digital library projects?”

The participants invited to participate were purposely selected based on the followingcriteria: they have experience in the development and implementation of DL projects;they conduct and publish research on DLs; they actively participate in international DLconferences as invited speakers; and they express willingness to participate in thestudy. Initially a total of 30 DL researchers and practitioners were invited and willing

EL31,1

10

to participate and ultimately a total of ten participants responded to the e-mailinterview. Table II details the information for each participant. Rockhart and Bullen’s(1981) open-ended questions on the codification of the CSF method were distributed tothese participants by e-mail:

. What are the success factors in your job as the digital library practitioner right now?

. In what one, two, or three areas would failure to perform well in your digitallibrary that hurt you the most?

. In what area would you hate to see something go wrong to your digital library?

. Assume you are placed in a dark room with no access to the outside world,except for daily food and water; what would you most want to know about yourdigital library when you came out three months later?

. What is your personal mission and role in the digital library?

. What are your most critical goals and objectives in your digital library?

. What are your three greatest business problems or obstacles in digital libraryservice?

FindingsIdentification of possible factors from the literatureAs the literature review has shown, the area of CSFs for IS implementation has been anactive field of research and while interest in technological, management and social issues

Participant Position Location Digital library project involved

DLP1a Librarian; LIS researcher Florida, USA VIVO: Enabling NationalNetworking of Scientists

DLP2 Faculty; LIS researcher New Zealand Greenstone DL

DLP3 Digital librarian Pittsburgh,USA

Digital Library Federation

DLP4 Academic librarian; digitallibrary researcher

North Carolina,USA

Senior Research Specialist inInformation Research at NortelNetworks

DLP5 Faculty and academic librarian Washington,D.C, USA

Library of Congress

DLP6 Professor; computer scientist Bangalore,India,

SDL Search digital libraries

DLP7 Professor; digital libraryresearcher

PARMA, Italy Erasmus Mundus Digital Library

DLP8 Faculty; software engineeringresearcher

Elche, Spain Miguel de Cervantes Digital Library

DLP9 Lis professor; scientist California, USA National Science Digital Library(NSDL) project

DLP10 Librarian; digital library projectcoordinator

New Delhi,India

ABIA International Index Project

Note: aDLP – digital library practitionerTable II.

The participants involved

Digital libraryCSFs

11

as they relate to DL implementations has been growing, there has been very limitedstudy assessment of CSFs as they apply to DL implementation. This research aims toprovide steps and insights into the confluence of this area. As a result, the works ofprevious researchers on the CSFs in information systems are mapped with a frameworkof DL implementation identified and presented in Table III. It presents the mapping ofthe six dimensions of the DL Enterprise Architecture framework (column 1 of Table III)with those CSFs dimensions culled from the literature (column 2 of Table III). This helpsto answer the first research question: “What potential factors contribute to the successfulimplementation of digital libraries?”. These factors (column 3 of Table III) are extractedto be incorporated in a model of DL success factors.

Validation of possible factors from keyword frequency analysisPotential success factors for DL projects extracted from the articles from ACM(n.d.)and LISA (n.d.) are shown in Table IV; only five factors have frequencies morethan 10 per cent from ACM and three factors have frequencies more than 10 per centfrom LISA. Five new factors that are added from the frequency analysis arehighlighted in bold (see Table IV); they are search, content, user interface, metadataand information retrieval.

Identification of possible factors from pilot case studyThe analysis of the ten participating DL practitioners appears to answer the researchquestions of this study. Their responses are expected to identify and demonstrate somethe CSFs pertaining to DLs. When converting the data collected into potential successfactors, we apply two important concepts that are created in Caralli (2004): activitystatements and supporting themes. Activity statements are statements that areharvested from interview notes and documents that reflect what managers do orbelieve they and the organisation should be doing to ensure success and supportingthemes highlight the underlying content or intent of a CSF. In essence, supportingthemes provide a description or definition of a CSF (Caralli, 2004). In this study activitystatements refer to the rich data obtained from the participants and the supportingthemes represent a group of activity statements and will be used as the foundationfrom which to create the CSF. There are many activity statements that can be extractedfrom the interview notes; activity statements are created from the e-mail responses thathave been collected, some are straightforward and others must be interpreted as tointent.

Approximately 70 statements which indicated possible factors were received fromthe ten participants. The list of possible factors is further enhanced summarizing theanswers from the ten participants. The list was then reduced to manageableproportions by scanning and identifying broad thematic areas and then grouping theideas into cognate categories. In no specific order of preference, Table V lists thepotential success factors obtained from the participants, the frequency of each factorobtained, and an example response for each factor. There are altogether 36 thematicareas which are mapped to the six EA dimensions; eight themes belong to motivation;four relate to resources; nine themes relate to people; 11 pertinent to process; and twoapplicable to network and time respectively. It can be seen that a funding model and anadequate budget is a potential success factor that is most often highlighted by theparticipants (six responses), followed by content production (five responses), and

EL31,1

12

The DL Enterprise ArchitectureFramework

Critical Success FactorsDimensions

Critical Success Factor Variablesculled from the literature

MotivationRefers to the motivation of thepeople and the digital library thatsupport the plan for realization.This reveals the reasons forcreating the digital library, as wellas the establishment of goals,objectives and business plan ofthe digital library

Organization Mission/Vision(Sim, 2003) (Beckworth andGarner, 1994)Top Management CommitmentFowler and Horan (2007); Rezaeiet al. (2009); Lamont (1999); Zhaoet al. (2010); McKinsey Quarterly(2011); Culler (2009); Hasanali(2002); Chong (2006); King (2001);Beckworth and Garner (1994);Poon and Wagner (2001)Organization Culture(Shearer, 2003)

A clear mission (Sim, 2003)A clear vision (Beckworth andGarner, 1994)A clear strategy (Beckworth andGarner, 1994)Top management leadership(Rezaei et al., 2009)Support from top management(Rezaei et al., 2009)Understand organizational culture(Shearer, 2003) (Beckworth andGarner, 1994)Consider the Collaborationenvironment (Amos and Ruthven,2008)Positive common perspectivesculturally (Beckworth and Garner,1994)Need to understand the dynamicsof groups (Rezaei et al., 2009)

ResourcesRefers to data. At the macro levelidentifies the informationresources included or covered inthe collaborative digital library,and at the micro level, concernedthe collections, quality, accuracy,usability, description andorganization of the resources inthe digital library

Data (Sim, 2003)Good metadata (Cole, 2002)Determining data structures (Sim,2003)

Resources and content availability(Isaias, Miranda, and Pifano, 2009)Maintaining availability (Wu,2008)Collection quality in general(Yanchun and Jin, 2009)Refers to the type of material(Shearer, 2003)Accuracy, Completeness,Currency data (Yanchun and Jin,2009)Knowledge/information (White,2006)

PeopleRefers to the stakeholders or thepeople within the digital libraryenterprise and metrics forassessing their capabilities andperformance. People describe the“actors” to which the digitallibrary assigns responsibility forwork

Staff Capability (Shukla, 2010)Capability Development program(Chong, 2006)User experience andempowerment (Chong, 2006)

The right personnel (Culler, 2009)Experienced personnel (Culler,2009)The quality of the staff includingTechnical knowledge (Shukla,2010)Ability to communicate withsenior management (Poon andWagner, 2001)Training (Fowler and Horan,2007) User community(Beckworth and Garner, 1994)A potential user (Lamont, 1999)Empower users (Isaias et al., 2009)User generated content (Isaiaset al., 2009)User satisfaction (Yanchun andJin, 2009)

(continued)

Table III.Mapping the dimensionsin enterprise architectureframework with the CSF

in the literature

Digital libraryCSFs

13

The DL Enterprise ArchitectureFramework

Critical Success FactorsDimensions

Critical Success Factor Variablesculled from the literature

ProcessRefers to the functions, oractivities, the digital library isconcerned about relative to eachperspective of the users(stakeholders)

Technology for DLI (Zhao et al.,2010) A basic communicationprotocols (McCray and Gallagher,2001) A strong Interaction andinteroperability (Westell, 2006)Treading toward a singlestandard (Zhao et al., 2010)Comparison with other DLs(Buchanan et al., 2005) A OpenArchives Initiative Protocol(Oguz, 2007)

Proper technology (Yanchun & Jin,2009)Applying technology to digitallibrary (Zhao et al., 2010)Defining implementationstrategies (Sim, 2003)Appropriate Architecture (Kanet al., 2008)The ability to provide access toreliable data from both internaland external sources (Poon andWagner, 2001)Strong human-machineinteraction function (Zhao et al.,2010)Information retrieval technique(Zhao et al., 2010)Search and browse (Yanchun andJin, 2009)

LocationRefers to the sites or geographicallocations and the interconnectionsbetween activities within thedigital library enterprise

Service related to network(Yanchun and Jin, 2009)Communication (Culler, 2009)

Good and better operatingperformance (Zhao et al., 2010)Establishing importantcommunication channels andestablishing necessaryinformation flow (Culler, 2009)

TimeRefers to the events to which thedigital library responds in relationto time. This is useful fordesigning schedules, theprocessing architecture, thecontrol architecture and timingsystems

Service related to time (Zhao et al.,2010)

A defined schedule or plan (Culler,2009)Achievable information in a shorttime (Thibodeau, 2007)Reliable, useful, up-to-date andtimely (Chong, 2006)

Table III.

No. PercentagePotential factors extracted from ACMDigital Library Potential factors extracted from LISA

1 . 10 Search, content, metadata, interface,information retrieval

Search, content, metadata

2 . 6-10 Archives, user interface, sharing,interoperability, performability,exploration

Interface, information retrieval, archives,software

3 .1-5 Collaboration, speed, comparison,recommender system, discovery

Sharing, collaboration, performance, userinterface, speed, comparison, discovery,exploration, interoperability

Table IV.Frequencies of possiblesuccess factors

EL31,1

14

No.Success factors (supporting themes) andnumber of responses obtained

The Quality Markers (the activity statements)obtained from the participants

1 MotivationTop management commitment and support(3/10)

Strong level of commitment from topmanagement (DLP8)

2 Middle management commitment andsupport (2/10)

Acceptance of responsibility for successimplementation performance by librarians(DLP7)

3 Clear DL policies and standards (3/10) Establishment and implementation of specific DLgoals and policies (DLP3)

4 Institutional Mandate (1/10) Local policy that articulates institution’scommitment to open access and describes theterms under which the members are required tocontribute copies of their scholarship outputs tothe DL (DLP3)

5 DL blueprint (1/10) The organization has a strategic master plan fordigital preservation and DL (DLP10)

6 Organizational culture (1/10) Promote the cultural environment within theorganization that there must be high amount andquality resources in DL (DLP7)

7 Funding model and adequate budget (6/10) Allocate sufficient funds to ensure DL success(DLP2)

8 Advocacy and promotion of DL (3/10) Promotional activities to raise awareness of DLand Open Access issues (DLP6)

1 ResourceContent production (5/10)

Producing adequate and updated resource forusers; the whole amount of publication entriesoverall (DLP5)

2 Structural and descriptive metadata (1/10) Using metadata schemas (Dublin Core, MARC,METS, MODS), focus on chapters, pages, or othersub-document divisions (Structural Metadata),and accurately describing the content of thedigital object itself completely (Descriptivemetadata) (DLP10)

3 Harvesting of resources and metadata (1/10) Mining of other digital repositories, faculty anddepartmental web sites for content and metadata(DLP10)

4 Availability of fulltext documents (4/10) Number (or percentage of) freely accessiblefulltext documents (DLP6)

1 PeopleEstablish a DL manager position to manageoverall DL (2/10)

Set up a skilled librarian or a group of librariansas DL manager to manage work procedures frominput to process and to output (DLP1)

2 Training and education (2/10) Providing effective and adequate training forstaff to be able to understand and efficientlyapply new digital technology (DLP7)

3 Personnel competency (1/10) Employ qualified, well-trained, and experiencedindividual DL personnel at all levels, from top,low management to employees (DLP8)

4 Sufficient personnel (3/10) Providing sufficient and enough staff to be ableto improve DL activities (DLP4)

(continued )

Table V.Success factors and the

quality markers collectedfrom the interview

Digital libraryCSFs

15

No.Success factors (supporting themes) andnumber of responses obtained

The Quality Markers (the activity statements)obtained from the participants

5 Teamwork (communication) (1/10) Working as a team and have sufficientcommunication between different department onDL services (DLP1)

6 Self-archiving behaviour (1/10) Expansion of self-archiving culture andproviding posting works on a publicly accessibleweb site (DLP6)

7 User satisfaction (3/10) Focus on users’ needs and their qualityrequirements, active participation from usersenable to ensure “success” (DLP2)

8 Identifying new users for the DL (2/10) Seek out new user populations to developcommunity (DLP9)

9 Understanding of user needs (3/10) Understanding multiple user needs, possessingthe technical training, experience, objectivity,and perspective to create highly usable, andquality indexes that meet the needs of all readersand users (DLP3)

1 ProcessA Open Archives Initiative Protocol (2/10)

Promoting broad access to digital resources byapplying Open Archives Initiative Protocol(DLP10)

2 Accuracy and reliability of service (2/10) Have agreement about the acceptable level ofservice quality (availability, timeline, accuracy,completeness) (DLP7)

3 Rights statement (4/10) Clear copyright management statement for the IRresources (DLM6)

4 Digital preservation (2/10) Design and development of a proper Digitalarchiving system, Digitization of contents tosuitable formats as per the requirementsi.e. Archival Formats for Preservation both longterm as well as short term (DLP8)

5 Alternative menu languages (1/10) Providing applications and Reference andInformation Service in several official languages,with bilingual staff in designated locations(DLP10)

6 Use of the repository (1/10) The ability to demonstrate usage of repositorycontent, expanding the use of the digital libraryand efficient use of material (DLP8)

7 Deploy information technology strategically(3/10)

Strategies of technology that is being use must besupport the DL project works well (DLP10)

8 Intelligent technology planning andforeseeing (1/10)

The strategy within the library must be supportstechnology innovation and the diffusion ofinnovation (DLP8)

9 Effective and efficient implementation of DLsoftware and hardware (1/10)

Proposing implementation of DL software/platforms and standards with an internationalperspective (flexibility, modularity, integrationwith different kinds of digital library) (DLP1)

10 Software to support the DL (2/10) The library must be have equipment andcommon DL software that will support the newtechnologies (DLP2)

(continued )Table V.

EL31,1

16

availability of fulltext documents (four responses). These themes are extracted to beincorporated in a model of DL success factors.

Discussion and conclusionThe study has mapped the general framework of CSFs culled from the literature andthe digital library’s enterprise architecture framework (Abdullah and Zainab, 2008) aswell as collecting possible factors from ten DL experts. It presents the model under sixdimensions and 36 thematic areas and 70 activity statements. This aggregate setcomprises an initial framework of DL CSF (Figure 1) which answers both questions inthis study i.e. “What factors contribute to the successful implementation of digitallibraries?” (presented in bold in Figure 1) and “What are the quality markers that digitallibrary practitioners use to signal success in their digital library projects?” (presented initalic in Figure 1). The model shows that motivation factor should be given the mostimportance to ensure success of DLs, followed by resource, people, process, locationand time. These perspectives established from the EA framework have helped ensurethat everything relevant to the DL’s success is covered.

The model comprises a number of indicators for CSFs concepts of DL which mayhelp designers of new DLs and current practitioners of DLs to identify success factorsneeded and constraints in the way DLI development to ensure adequate quality. Thepaper makes a contribution to the digital library literature in four ways:

(1) It makes the theoretical case to extend CSF to provide for broad DLparticipation, keep DL practitioners such as researchers, developers, managers,librarians and educators focused on what is important to the DLs, and providerich information to these practitioners about relationships DL attributes andCSF.

No.Success factors (supporting themes) andnumber of responses obtained

The Quality Markers (the activity statements)obtained from the participants

11 Utilization of best productivity tools (1/10) Utilizing modern technologies and creation toolsof digital content, such as animation, audio,graphics, images and video (JPEG, MPEG andMP3 and, etc.) (DLP10)

1 Location/networkKnowledge sharing (1/10)

To do knowledge sharing partnership with users(DLP7)

2 Scholarly communication (1/10) Establishing scholarly communication systemand developing scholarly publishing (such aspublished books or journal articles, researchresults and data sets, and drafts of papers)(DLP3)

1 TimeProvision of access 24/7 (1/10)

To provide access to electronic resources 24/7and make available material for the future(DLP10)

2 Fast access to the DL (2/10) Many users can use the web at a faster andcheaper rate if the DL infrastructure bedeveloped (DLP9) Table V.

Digital libraryCSFs

17

(2) It defines DL CSF as a rich concept to model the relationships among the sixdimensions in the Enterprise Architecture framework.

(3) It may help the practitioners to begin to develop a more efficientimplementation program of DLs and to plan how set priorities that will helpensure desired levels of performance as well as desired collectioncharacteristics.

(4) It may help designers and developers of new DL systems, as they build inmeans to measure and ensure system quality, as well quality of service.

This model will be tested empirically and will be iteratively revised in our subsequentstudy. In future work we hope to extend our efforts toward developing a CSF Model fordigital libraries that can be deployed by other researchers.

Figure 1.The model for digitallibrary critical successfactors

EL31,1

18

References

Abdullah, A. and Zainab, A.N. (2008), “The digital library as an enterprise: the Zachmanapproach”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 446-67.

ACM (n.d.), ACM, available at: http://portal.acm.org/ (accessed Janevery13, 2011).

Amos, H. and Ruthven, T. (2008), “Becoming the authoritative source: taking repositories tocentre stage”, Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the International Associationof Technological University Libraries, Auckland, available at: www.iatul.org/doclibrary/public/Conf_Proceedings/2008/HowardAmos.doc (accessed February 2, 2011).

Beckworth, G. and Garner, B. (1994), A Framework for the Success Factors in the InformationSystem Development Process, Australia, available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi¼10.1.1.45.603 (accessed February 12, 2011).

Borgman, C. (2000), From Gutenberg to the Global Information Infrastructure, MIT Press,Cambridge, MA, available at: http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype¼2&tid¼9661 (accessed February 7, 2011).

Buchanan, G., Bainbridge, D., Don, K.J. and Witten, I.H. (2005), “A new framework for buildingdigital library collections”, Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference onDigital Libraries, New York, NY.

Caralli, R.A. (2004), The Critical Success Factor Method: Establishing a Foundation for EnterpriseSecurity Management, Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA,available at: www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/04tr010.pdf (accessed February 27, 2011).

Chong, S.C. (2006), “Critical success factors to knowledge management implementation: a holisticapproach”, paper presented at Knowledge Management International Conference andExhibition, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, available at: www.kmice.uum.edu.my/kmice2010/files/kmice06.PDF (accessed January 20, 2011).

Cochrane, T.D. (2010), “Exploring Mobile Learning success factors”, ALT-J: Research inLearning Technology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 133-48, available at: http://web.me.com/thom_cochrane/MobileWeb2/Research_Outputs/JournalPapers/ALTJ.pdf (accessed January 23,2011).

Cole, T.W. (2002), “Creating a framework of guidance for building good digital collections”, FirstMonday, Vol. 7 No. 5.

Culler, E.W. (2009), “The degree of relationship between critical success factors and informationtechnology project performance”, dissertation, doctor of management in organizationalleadership, University of Phoenix, Phoeniz, AZ.

Dahlan, N., Karia, N., Abu Hassan Asaari, M.H., Ramayah, T. and Lee, G.T. (2006), “Role oforganisation context on digital library’s success factors”, in Khosrow-Pour, M. (Ed.),Emerging Trend and Challenges in Information Technology Management, Idea GroupPublishing, Hershey, PA, pp. 712-4.

Esteves, J. and Pastor, J. (2000), “Towards the unification of critical success factors for ERPimplementations”, Proceedings of 10th Annual BIT Conference, Manchester, available at:www.jesteves.com/BIT2000.htm (accessed January 28, 2011).

Fowler, J.J. and Horan, P. (2007), “Are information systems’ success and failure factors related?An exploratory study”, Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, Vol. 19 No. 2,pp. 1-22.

Gibbons, S. (2004), “Defining an institutional repository”, Library Technology Reports, Vol. 40No. 4, pp. 6-10.

Digital libraryCSFs

19

Goncalves, M.A., Moreira, B.L., Fox, E.A. and Watson, L.T. (2007), “What is a good digitallibrary? A quality model for digital libraries”, Information Processing and Management,Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 1416-37.

Guynes, C.S. and Vanecek, M.T. (1996), “Critical success factors in data management”,Information & Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 201-9.

Hasanali, F. (2002), Critical Success Factors of Knowledge Management, available at: www.providersedge.com/docs/km_articles/critical_success_factors_of_km.pdf (accessedMarch 13, 2011).

Iagzian, F. (2010), “Critical success factors in digital libraries implementation: a review”,Proceedings of the The Asian Conference on Media & Mass Communication (2010),Osaka, Japan, available at: www.iafor.org/MediAsia%202010%20Official%20Conference%20Proceedings.pdf.

Isaias, P., Miranda, P. and Pifano, S. (2009), “Critical success factors for web 2.0: a referenceframework”, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Online Communities andSocial Computing: Held as Part of HCI International 2009, July 19-24, 2009, San Diego,CA.

Jayasundara, C.C. (2004), “An identification of critical success factors (CSFs) on user perspectivesin diffusing e-information service in the University of Colombo Library”, Sri LankanJournal of Librarianship and Information Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1-12, available at:www.cmb.ac.lk/academic/institutes/nilis/reports/chaminda.pdf (accessed February 13,2011).

Kan, M.Y., Lee, D.W. and Lim, E.P. (2008), “Scholarly digital libraries at scale: introduction to thespecial issue on very large digital libraries”, International Journal on Digital Libraries,Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 81-2.

Khandewal, V. and Miller, J. (1992), “Information system study”, Opportunity ManagementProgram, IBM Corporation, New York, NY.

King, L.T.Y. (2001), “The critical success factors that influences IT organisations to adoptinternet technology”, Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, Vol. 6 No. 2,pp. 35-51.

Lamont, M. (1999), “Critical human factors in emerging library technology centers”, Library HiTech, Vol. 7 No. 4, p. 390.

Lampert, C. and Vaughn, J. (2009), “Success factors and strategic planning: rebuilding anacademic library digitization programme”, Information Technology and Libraries, Vol. 28No. 3, pp. 116-36.

Lee, O. (2002), “An action research report on the Korean National Digital Library”, Information& Management, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 255-60.

LISA (n.d.), LISA, available at: www.csa.com/factsheets/lisa-set-c.php (accessed January 13,2011).

McCray, A.T. and Gallagher, M.E. (2001), “Principles for digital library development”,Communication of the ACM, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 49-54.

McKinsey Quarterly (2011), “Six critical success factors to make Web 2.0 work”, McKinseyQuarterly, available at: http://digiredo.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/six-critical-success-factors-to-make-web-20-work/ (accessed January 13, 2011).

Oguz, F. (2007), “An exploration of the diffusion of a new technology from communities ofpractice perspective: web services technologies in digital libraries”, Doctor of Philosophy(Information Sciences).

EL31,1

20

Poon, P. and Wagner, C. (2001), “Critical success factors revisited: success and failure cases ofinformation systems for senior executives”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 30 No. 4,pp. 393-418, available at: http://paul-hadrien.info/backup/LSE/IS%20470/litterature%20review/CSFs%20failulre%20senior%20exectuives.pdf (accessed February 29, 2011).

Ramaprasad, A. and Williams, J. (1998), “The utilization of critical success factors: a profile”,paper presented at the 29th Annual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute, Las Vegas,NV.

Rezaei, A., Asadi, A., Rezvanfar, A. and Hassanshahi, H. (2009), “The impact of organizationalfactors on management information system success: an investigation in the Iran’sagricultural extension providers”, The International Information & Library Review, Vol. 41No. 3, pp. 163-72, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105723170900023X (accessed February 29, 2011).

Rockart, J.F. (1979), “Chief executives define their own data needs”, in Rockart, J.F. and Bullen,C.V. (Eds), The Rise of Managerial Computing, MIT Sloan School of Management,Cambridge, MA.

Rockart, J. and Bullen, C. (1981), “A primer on critical success factors”, working paper, MIT SloanSchool of Management, Cambridge, MA, Center for Information Systems Research, No. 69.

Rockart, J. and Van Bullen, C. (1986), “A primer on critical success factors”, in Rockart, J. and VanBullen, C. (Eds), The Rise of Management Computing, Irwin, Homewood, IL.

Selim, H.M. (2007), “Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: confirmatory factormodels”, Computers & Education, Vol. 49, pp. 396-413, available at: www.qou.edu/arabic/researchProgram/eLearningResearchs/criticalSuccess.pdf (accessed February 19, 2011).

Shah, M.H. and Siddiqui, F.A. (2006), “Organisational critical success factors in adoption ofe-banking at the Woolwich Bank”, International Journal of Information Management,Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 442-56.

Shearer, K. (2003), “Institutional repositories: towards the identification of critical successfactors”, Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, available at: www.cais-acsi.ca/proceedings/2003/Shearer_2003.pdf (accessed February 16, 2011).

Shen, R., Vemuri, N.S., Fan, W. and Fox, E.A. (2006), “What is a successful digital library?”,Proceedings of the ECDL (European Conference on Digital Libraries), Alicante, pp. 208-19.

Shukla, B.V. (2010), “Digital library and ICT sector in library and information science: a study”,International Conference on Digital Libraries 2010 (ICDL 2010): Shaping the InformationParadigm, New Delhi, 23-26 February 2010, Vol. 1, p. 30.

Sim, J.S. (2003), “Critical success factors in data mining projects”, University of North Texas,Doctor of Philosophy (Business Computer Information Systems), available at: http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc4293/m1/1/high_res_d/dissertation.pdf (accessedFebruary 15, 2011).

Sumner, M. (1999), “Critical success factors in enterprise wide information management systemsprojects”, paper presented at the Americas Conference on Information Systems,Milwaukee, WI.

Thibodeau, K. (2007), “If you build it, will it fly? Criteria for success in a digital repository”,Journal of Digital Information, Vol. 8 No. 2, available at: http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/viewArticle/197/174 (accessed February 10, 2011).

Thong, J.Y.L., Hong, W. and Tam, K.Y. (2002), “Understanding user acceptance of digitallibraries: what are the roles of interface characteristics, organizational context, andindividual differences?”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 57 No. 3,pp. 215-42.

Digital libraryCSFs

21

Waters, D.J. (1998), “What are digital libraries?”, CLIR (Council on Library and InformationResources) Issues, Vol. 4, available at: www.clir.org/pubs/issues/issues04.html (accessedFebruary 24, 2011).

Westell, M. (2006), “Institutional repositories in Canada – institutional repositories: proposedindicators of success”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 211-26.

White, S.A. (2006), “Critical success factors for institutional change – some organizationalperspectives”, available at: http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13225/1/Critical_Success_Factors_for_Institutional_Change_latest.pdf.

Xia, J.F. and Sun, L. (2007), “Assessment of self-archiving in institutional repositories:depositorship and full-text availability”, Serials Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 14-21, (accessedMarch 21, 2011).

Yanchun, M. and Jin, W. (2009), “What is a good digital library in undeveloped regions”, paperpresented at IEEE International Symposium on Information Eechnology in Medicine andEducation, Ji’nan, August 14-16, available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp¼&arnumber¼5236403&tag¼1(accessed March 28, 2011).

Zachman, J.A. (2002), “Zachman international enterprise architecture”, available at: www.zachmaninternational.com/Default.htm (accessed March 11, 2011).

Zahedi, F. (1987), “Reliability of information systems based on critical success factorsformulation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 187-203.

Zhao, Y., Niu, Z., Cao, Y. and Dai, L. (2010), “Research on evaluation of digital library”,Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Storage and Data Engineering, 9-10February, Bangalore, available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber¼5452595 (accessed March 21, 2011).

Zuccala, A., Oppenheim, C. and Dhiensa, R. (2008), “Managing and evaluating digitalrepositories”, Information Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, available at http://InformationR.net/ir/13-1/paper333.html

Further reading

Wu, J.J. and Huang, R.H. (2008), “Design and implementation of a personal digital libraryplatform”, Proceedings of 2008 IEEE International Symposium on IT in Medicine andEducation, IEEE, available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp¼&arnumber¼4743893 (accessed February 19, 2011).

About the authorsFatemeh Lagzian is a PhD candidate from Iran attached to the Department of Library andInformation Science in the Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Universityof Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. Her research interests include digital libraries and institutionalrepositories. Fatemeh Lagzian is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:fatemeh.lagzian@gmail.com

Abdullah Abrizah is an Associate Professor at the Department of Library and InformationScience at the Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University ofMalaya, Kuala Lumpur. She was a teacher librarian for ten years and was then appointed asan Assistant Director at the Educational Planning and Research Division of the Ministry ofEducation Malaysia before joining the University in 2000. She graduated with a BSc inEnvironmental Engineering from Temple University, Philadelphia in 1988, and obtained herMLIS degree in 1998 and PhD in 2007 from the University of Malaya. She has authored manyconference and journal papers related to digital libraries and open access repositories. She isthe Executive Editor of the Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, and

EL31,1

22

currently the Deputy Director of the Malaysian Citation Centre, Ministry of Higher EducationMalaysia.

Mee Chin Wee is a Lecturer in Information Systems at the University of Malaya, KualaLumpur, Malaysia. She holds a PhD and her research interests include computers in education,computer managed instruction, computer assisted assessment, online collaborative tools,barriers and critical success factors for the use of computer in education, and data visualisationtechniques. She has published a number of papers related to these areas.

Digital libraryCSFs

23

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints