The Socio-Technical Sustainability Roadmap, an online training module presented by the National Endowment for the Humanities, offers a project planning guide for anyone designing a “web-based, user-facing, digital humanities project.” Poking around on the site a bit, I was curious to notice that it was hard to find any explicit mention on the site of who, exactly, the site and training program are intended for – maybe a bit surprising, since one of the key recommendations offered in the modules is that project planners should identify the “designated communities” of users for their products. Nonetheless, it’s pretty clear that the training is designed to be useful for individuals or teams working in a wide range of settings (academia, arts, public service, entrepreneurial, any combination of the above), and is relevant and helpful for us.
A key principle and purpose of the training program, as indicated in the title, is to support project planners in planning for the sustainability of their products. Coming from the world of humanitarian aid, I feel a special appreciation for their emphasis on this principle, as well as admiration for the concrete, clear approaches they offer.* Section A, the Project Survey, begins by recommending that we begin by determining what “sustainability” could and should look mean for our projects, and planning toward that vision from inception. Module 1-A, then, gives us a translation and application of the concept of “sustainability” into even simpler and more specific terms by naming and discussing the phases and sub-phases of the typical arc of the “life” of a digital product or platform. I found the descriptions of what these phases might look like especially useful in imaging concrete possibilities for my own project.
A second principle we have started to discussion, and that I see addressed in the design and purpose of the training program, is “failing well.” The “About” page of the site explains that the concept of the program originates from experiences with MedArt, a digital collection of medieval art and architecture that was a great success in the first phase of its availability and use, but which over time had become less frequently used and updated. The Sustainability Roadmap doesn’t actually use the word “fail,” but I was still impressed that the training program had been developed through a process that began with their team’s recognition and acknowledgment of a project’s flaws and limitations, and then synthesizing and sharing real and applicable lessons from that experience.
Here are a few questions that I hoped we could discuss to compare our experiences as we worked through Module A:
1) What are some of the questions from any of the module that you would have expected, were already thinking about and/or felt well prepared to answer?
2) What are some of the questions, from any module, that you didn’t expect, and/or addressed issues that you had not (yet) been thinking about? Of these, which did you find:
- Helpful, inspiring or evocative? (I could also say “generative” but am tired of that word at the moment, no offense to anyone who likes it. Include it if it works for you, though.).
- Overwhelming, discouraging, or confounding?
- Not relevant or applicable to your project?
3) Our readings on project planning, most of which are addressed to software design projects, give quite a bit of attention to questions around who the end-users of our projects may be, and their experiences in using what we produce. In my post for last week I mentioned that I especially like the idea of thinking about who the users or “designated communities” of research findings might be, especially because with respect to my own work, it seems like a strong way of operationalizing my accountability to the people (youth, communities) that I’m ostensibly working with and for. I’ll add that I was fascinated and inspired to learn more about everyone else’s projects, and especially to see how many of you are working on projects that are very explicitly intended to be practical, useful tools and resources to benefit educators, students and others, within and beyond the academy. (And that’s not meant to imply criticism for anyone who’s projects focus more on studies and uses within the academy). To continue that conversation:
- Has your thinking about who your users or “designated communities” may be changed or evolved in the past couple of weeks?
- Are there new potential “unintended” communities that might use or benefit from your work?
In the modules, there were a few questions that were helpful to me. I particularly tried my best to utilize module A3. It helped to affirm and solidify for me who my project is for, and what they would expect from it. Module A3 was probably the most useful for me since it reminding me to start with the goal of meeting the user’s needs.
There were a lot of questions in the modules that I found confusing or really unhelpful for my project in it’s current state. Beginning with module A1 I was kind of lost when I got to the question “what different workflows do you have on your team?”. I think I approached the project survey believing that I should be able to complete it but needed to realize that it was intended to be more of an intellectual exercise. Once I learned to the modules, without intending to complete them, I found it much easier. There were still parts I couldn’t answer, but probably the most difficult thing was feeling that my project was to small. I had a lot of repetitive answers and each time I replied the same way, I thought that I should have more to say. However, expanding my project in it’s beginning stages wouldn’t make any sense, so while I felt that my planning was lacking, it was probably also due to the nature of the modules.
As Juliet said, planning for “designated communities” is very useful for me as well. Once I had decided that my project would be for beginners and those with little experience in crafting/cosplay work, I think the scope changed a lot. It narrowed down a lot of my decisions, knowing that I intended for someone to have a simplistic experience. As for “unintended” communities, I’ve begun to think that my project could work for more experienced users as well. A simplistic tool is one that someone at any level might want to reference. Targeting beginners may also pull in people from adjacent communities who do not cosplay or craft, but having found a simple resource, they may want to try it.
The Socio-Technical Sustainability Roadmap was a great module that assisted me in organizing my project plans and its components. Specifically, the first module helped me to think more critically about the scope of my project and different access points for my project along with the outputs that will result. In the development of my application that will provide data on genus specific trees (oaks) and their growth, answering the questions on the worksheet provided me more clarity on feasible timelines for the application’s development.
One of the important components of my project is thinking about how long I want it to last, along with the different development phases that it will ultimately evolve. Since my research requires a significant amount of data collection, I think it would be practical to think that my project will be in the “Active Creation” and “Ongoing Maintenance” phases while lasting for much longer than three years. My plan is to develop an algorithm that ultimately advances the understanding of tree physiology through both ground-based and satellite-based measurements. This initial gathering and analysis will produce something that can lay foundational work for future generations to use. The workings of the algorithm will require a significant amount of ground work data collection
Completing Module A essentially helped me to tease out the components that I can directly and indirectly impact (i.e., data analysis, mentoring the youth, communicating findings to policy makers).
People have done of lot of tech things. Even in the relatively short timeline of digital-online worlds, so many projects have been created. Technologies, resources, and platforms that seemed so necessary and obvious to me at the time have faded into obscurity. So many things are living in obscurity.
An example: the other day I revisited craigslist.com. I hadn’t thought about it in ages. It was essential to finding myself a place to live 15 years ago. It also was a great source of entertainment, with hilarious and bizarre postings being shared around. I’m nostalgic for its simplicity, etc, but I’m not really wanting to use it again.
I bring this up because in the moment it seems: “of course this is going to live forever! It’s such a great idea!”
And maybe it is a good idea. But maybe not forever?
Thinking about my project through these modules and questions gave me a different take on it. Instead of the setup, I was thinking about the punchline. A backward design sort of perspective. It made me consider simplifying to the reach I’d like with the intended audience, rather focusing on the gee-whiz gizmos of flashy-flash. Maybe a WordPress site is enough?
Sometimes I look up people on the web that have made a difference in my life. Old professors, teachers, friends and the like. Sometimes I think, “This person is so incredible and amazing it’s a shame there isn’t more about them on the web! Why hasn’t anyone posted their artworks or written glowing tributes to their wonder and brilliance?” I wonder if I should be doing that. But I don’t need to, because I remember. The web doesn’t need to remember that for me.
The digital projects can sunset, because they live on in our hearts.
This post was helpful in thinking about the unintended communities who might come across and use my project. I’d been thinking very narrowly of who would be a user: undergraduates taking Intro to Psych, and, recently, other instructors teaching the course. I thought that as I would be the one building the website and using it in my own class, it would only be accessible through me, but that’s not how things work on the internet. It recently dawned on me that students in other psych classes might benefit from some of the demonstrations—including high schoolers; my teenage sister taking AP Psych in high school helped me realize this. How might the project shift to be easily usable by high schoolers? How much detail do I need to provide for people not involved in psychology but interested in a particular concept? What would other psychology researchers have to say about my project? Thanks to this module, my eyes have opened a little bit wider, and I have a better idea of who to consider as I go about building content for my website beyond the demos.
The Socio-Technical Sustainability Roadmap seems to me like a useful tool that allows you to keep in mind some of the essential components you need to watch out for when planning to create a digital humanities project. One of the interesting aspects that I found is how they reify time in 3-year sets and also keep in mind not only the moments of active creation and sustainability, but also when its time for retirement and how to go about it. So called “sunsets” are also the main topic of the interview with Deana Haggag, which I found quite useful in thinking a little bit more of what do I really want to do and what do I want to accomplish. Specifically, what most called my attention was her discussion on the “ethics” of sunsets and reiterating the fact that any of these projects, even if its just personal, do require resources in terms of not only time and money, but even just attention of potential users. Going back to the STSR, this reminded me of all the steps it recommends it gives to create and sustain a Digital Project, and more specifically the fact that the collaboration and responsibilities of multiple people is something that must necessarily be assumed in one way or another. In relation to my project, even if I don’t like the specifics of what is being done in most cases with digital archiving and periodicals, there is always that temptation maybe to follow the lead that’s being set up and promoted by other larger organizations. But I’m not there yet.
Carlos, thank you so much for bringing a discussion of the interview with Deanna Haggag about nonprofit “sunsetting” into your post. To be totally honest, I hadn’t had time to read it when I wrote my initial post. Now that I have, I’m all the more interested in the parallels and analogies between digital platforms and tools, and nonprofit (and similar) organizations with respect to sustainability and/or sunsetting.
Your post, Jason Holt’s post, and the Haggag interview made me think that some websites and organizations are just like any other type of human creation – we may feel and hope in the moment that we’re creating something of permanent and stable relevance and value, but in fact, they have a natural arc and eventually become memories, or not, like many other things (books, performances, people).
I am interested in the questions highlighted in the Haggag interview – those that she and her colleagues asked themselves as they considered the process and implications of closing her organization. I take it as a given that these questions were the right ones for her organization at that moment. That said, I would like to add a couple of additional questions that might apply both to my own ITP project, and to many of the humanitarian response programs I’ve worked on, and possibly to others – or perhaps to any digital project OR human organization created to provide an essential service (and we can/should debate what the definition of “essential” might be..):
Who is the rightful owner of this information, platform, service or program? Is there any way it can be passed to those owners?
Has it become essential for its designated community or another community? If it closes or disappears, will we be taking something away that someone else needs, or has come to value? (How does this relate to any expectations we set with designated or unintended users, explicitly or implicitly, when we started this project?) In other words, will anyone be left without something that has become essential – for their livelihood, work, wellbeing, or knowledge – if this project is closed or fully retired? How can we avoid creating such harm in the closing process?
I found that much of the Socio-Technical Sustainability Roadmap was self-explanatory and, for the most part, things I had already started to think about for my project. For example, I had already narrowed down the project’s type of output, user community, and mission. Of course, the main parts I really could not relate to were any questions/activities that involved working in a group or talking about my “team,” since I’ll be working on a solo project. I was also slightly confused by the term “access points” in Module A1, but I assumed that relates to the project’s output(s).
Module A2, which focuses on the project’s sustainability, was something I had not really expected nor really begun to think about. I understand why this module is especially important — you really are more likely to be successful at implementing your project for a desired amount of time, if you think about it beforehand! But still, in trying to complete Module A2, I really struggled to fully determine how long exactly my project will last. (I relate so much to this part of Jason’s comment: “of course this is going to live forever! It’s such a great idea!”) In the end, I decided I’ll aim for at least a year, but it’ll hinge on my own time (and what’s going on in my life at a particular moment), whether I want to continue doing something I may be passionate about but not necessarily be able to monetize, and how much interest the project generates.
Thank you Juliet and to all of our colleagues for posting great reflections and insights about this training module.
As Braelyn mentioned, I was a little overwhelmed when I first accessed the modules and saw all the links to additional resources, concepts and terms in each of the modules. Same as Braelyn, as soon as I started reading them and taking it step-by-step, I began to reflect on the broader questions about my project, including the “designated communities” that will interact with my website and other users from other communities as well. When I read module “A1- What is the scope of your project?” I felt a little daunted thinking about the deliverables, since I am still drafting and re-working how the skeleton of my website will look like, how it will be conceptualized, and what information they will hold. It also interacts with Module “A3- Who is the project designed for?” since I have an idea whom it intends to serve – faculty and students interested in topics on environmental anthropology and economic anthropology, and other audiences that have a general interest in food, coffee and Latin America and the Caribbean. It also helped me to reflect on how can I see this as a Public Scholarship website – that works also as a repository of scientific literature (OER component), information on anthropology as a discipline, and periodic research updates from the fieldwork process.
I found really productive the table on module A-3, in which it breaks down into three columns “User Community”/”Needs”/”How are there needs met?” as an excellent tool to help me think and reshape how the project can serve all the audiences I mentioned (both inside and outside academia).
Even when these modules are intended for digital humanities projects, I find them extremely useful for people (like us) who are interested in communicating and framing their research for a broader impact outside academia.
While the roadmap and its worksheets were a good check-in and strategy for aligning concepts with utility, it seemed a like something that would have been much more useful during Core 1. Speaking from my experience of the certificate program thus far: having this kind of scope and audience reality check would have helped frame the ideation of the final project, at this point I have run through most of these worksheets questions the “hard way.” That said, the parts about sustainability and lifespan were important considerations.
I thought the project documentation checklist was particularly helpful to think about ahead of time. I often find myself trying to keep projects organized as I go or after the projects are completed, which is challenging. And a lot of time gets wasted when I want to revisit a completed project and I can’t remember where it’s stored. Instead, I think identifying my reliable sites of project documentation ahead of time (and sticking with them) is a useful exercise.
The Socio-Technical Sustainability Roadmap is a useful tool for project management and planning. It effectively helps developers think through both the short-term and long-term considerations for a digital humanities project. While the roadmap highlights important considerations, I felt like I needed to do some work on my own before being able to benefit from the planning modules. As some of my colleagues indicated, I was a little overwhelmed when I began to work on the modules, mainly because I have yet to commit to a final project and while I have several ideas, I am struggling with the selection of one idea over others. While initially working through the modules and trying to select a final project topic, I did find that one of my ideas began to emerge to the surface more so than the others, which led to other questions. Does this newly-emerged primacy make this one project more valid or more achievable than the others? Or is it simply a better project for the STSR exercise – does it lend itself to better answers to the questions that are being asked therein? While I am still fleshing out those specific answers this week, I do believe that the considerations and related debates are helpful in determining the topic, validity, scope and audiences of a given project.
I want to second Jessica on usefulness of section on documentation and preservation of data. This is an issue I constantly run into when working even in smallest groups. Advice on how to organize data in a way that can be accessed quickly and with minimum mental effort was of particular value.
As for the aspect that I have not thought before, for me it was thinking of current and future staffing. I understand that for next three years I will probably be the main person working on the project. This is a period in which I hope to defend my dissertation. However, after that the created tools might most likely be used by other researchers who are the designated community for my project after all. Hopefully, during the development of my WordPress platform I would get enough feedback to investigate potential needs of scholarly community.