The Warm up
Our annual ‘RAM Jam’ sessions are always a highlight in my DPC calendar. Since we organized our very first event in 2019, these Members-only sessions have provided a small and informal forum for DPC Members to share their experiences of using our Rapid Assessment Model (DPC RAM) to drive digital preservation forward within their organizations.
This year, to celebrate 5 years of RAM, we encouraged Members to share their tips on how to make the most out of RAM – perhaps lessons learned after using RAM for 5 years, or fresh insights from those who have more recently come to use the model.
We are always looking for new ways to facilitate international dialogue, so staged this event as a ‘virtual relay race’, starting and ending in Australasia and traveling around the time zones. The key to making this format work was finding a way of passing some of the key learnings from each session forward – a kind of virtual baton gathering tips along the way. This was facilitated by the creation of a short highlights video from each DPC event host that could be played at subsequent sessions.
These short videos can be found on the event page (member login to the DPC website required to view). The sessions themselves weren’t recorded, but we’ve distilled the race highlights for you below.
Leg one
I didn’t see the start of the RAM Jam relay race (I was asleep), but I was reliably informed by my colleagues in Australasia that Matthew Burgess of the State Library of New South Wales and Cassie Shaw from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology got the race off to a strong start, both talking about how DPC RAM helped them to develop digital preservation strategies. There were some common themes from these talks.
Different approaches to carrying out a RAM assessment were discussed but the importance of involving colleagues was noted by both speakers. We’ve often talked about the benefits of doing a collaborative RAM assessment, but an alternative approach may involve carrying out a solo assessment and using that as a starting point to discuss with others within your organization and making adjustments as required.
Advocacy was another clear theme and the value of the radar chart that is produced in the RAM spreadsheet was noted. This provides a concise way of communicating what level you are at currently and it is also possible to use the benchmarking information available to DPC Members as a visual point of comparison. It was noted that this was a powerful way to get information about digital preservation capabilities across to senior managers who might not have time to look at the fuller details of the assessment.
There were some great tips and advice that came out of this leg of the race. Being rigorous and transparent was seen as important. Making your RAM assessment what you need it to be was another tip – it provides a flexible tool that you can use however best meets your needs – the basic model is provided but only you can choose the scope, the focus, the frequency. Make these decisions work for you. The speakers also noted that RAM can’t solve every problem for you so can be used in combination with other models and tools to get a fuller picture of where you are. Finally, it was noted that the RAM assessment is a great tool to stop you getting lost in the weeds of digital preservation. It helps you to look up from the specific technical challenge you might be focusing on and consider the bigger picture.
Leg two
Session 2 was hosted at a time to suit Members in Europe. We had 2 further presentations, both providing a unique case study on the use of DPC RAM.
Firstly, Patricia Sleeman and Ndahambelela Hertha Iipinge from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) provided a case study on how DPC RAM has helped measure and drive their digital preservation journey since they first carried out an assessment in 2019. The progress that has been made across a number of areas was really positive to see. It was noted in particular how DPC RAM really helped highlight the gaps they had in their documentation and flagged up the importance of embedding digital preservation in organizational policies. They also took a deep dive into the Metadata Management and IT Capability sections of RAM, demonstrating and tracking substantial progress. It was noted that the Community section of RAM has been key for them – being both their highest scoring and also highly valued area as demonstrated by the open sharing of ideas and discussion in this session. For UNHCR RAM has provided an important mechanism for measuring progress and also being able to look back at the journey that they have taken to get to where they are now.
Elizabeth Thompson-MacRae discussed using DPC RAM as a new member of staff at the University of St Andrews. Though St Andrews had used RAM several times previously, this was her first experience with it and it provided a really useful tool for finding out how things are done and facilitating structured conversations with colleagues.
Elizabeth’s background in risk management came out strongly in this case study and it was interesting to hear how RAM was used to help understand and manage risk across the different types of content that need to be managed across the University on an enterprise level. Building on a previously adopted approach, she talked about the benefits of doing multiple RAM assessments for different content types. This provides a more detailed picture and helps highlight risks in specific areas (which otherwise might be obscured by a broader assessment). The language of risk as it relates to RAM assessments was also seen as a benefit when communicating with colleagues in other departments, and the use of RAM led to highlighted risks being extracted and included in institutional risk registers, thus foregrounding the need to improve digital preservation capacity as an obvious mitigation strategy.
Discussion after the presentations picked up on the topic of risk, the benefit of using RAM with new team members as a tool for understanding the lie of the land and the power of the DPC community that sits behind RAM. This gives it some authority as colleagues can understand that it is a recognised framework that is widely used.
Others in the room picked up on the importance of using RAM with colleagues, the benefits of collaborative assessment and of repeating the exercise too. It was also noted that the timing of a RAM assessment is important – doing it to coincide with annual planning cycles can be really beneficial in ensuring that actions arising from gaps highlighted in the RAM assessment are not forgotten.
Leg three
In session 3 we moved into a time zone best suited to the Americas. First up was Rachel MacGregor who was able to share her insights on having done a RAM assessment for 5 years in a row for the University of Warwick. DPC RAM was first released shortly after she started working at the Modern Records Centre at the University and it provided a tool that was able to provide a fairly quick assessment of where things currently were. Though that first use didn’t really lead to action – note that there was no encouragement to set a target date in the first version and no tools (such as Level up with RAM or the forward planning template) available to guide follow up actions - the assessment did at least give a helpful indication of current status.
By the time Rachel used RAM for the 3rd time, it was gathering momentum as a productive activity leading to concrete actions and contributing to personal development and strategic planning. She discussed the benefits of using it at a time when staffing capacity had changed and digital preservation activities had stalled and how beneficial it was just to note the impact on RAM scores and understand how changing circumstances directly impacted the digital preservation service.
Rachel’s top tip was to keep on doing RAM assessments every year – she felt that completing it annually is a useful exercise even if you feel no progress has been made. She is pleased to have a complete picture of digital preservation capabilities over the last 5 years and to have documented the impact that changing circumstances have had. She also recommended treating your RAM assessment as a ‘living document’ that you go back to, rather than a one-off annual assessment that you ignore once complete.
Next up we heard from Lisa Lawlis on how to use RAM to ‘Jump from Theory to Practice’. Lisa talked of the success she had had in using RAM at Western Libraries (Canada). As echoed by others across the sessions she spoke of how useful RAM was when starting in post - she felt it gave a really helpful overview of current capability. Similar to speakers in session 1, Lisa noted that though her work as an assistant archivist often requires her to focus on tools and hands on digital forensics processes, RAM provided an opportunity to look up and consider broader organizational and resourcing issues.
She found that RAM provided a helpful language with which to understand digital preservation good practice. Noting that not everyone is on the same page when it comes to digital preservation, she felt that RAM was a basis for understanding what is required. RAM is also a great tool to help celebrate how far you have come – the visualizations can be used to demonstrate success and share that with colleagues. In terms of tips, Lisa recommended using RAM as an informal tool to kick off digital preservation conversations across different units of the organization. Like the speakers in session 2 she noted that it carries some authority and gives weight to the recommendations you might come up with for moving forward.
After the presentations we discussed how a RAM might change over subsequent iterations – some of the things that were noted were that target scores may go down – RAM assessments typically get more realistic over time! Rachel noted that we shouldn’t be afraid to be brutally honest when doing a RAM assessment. The scope of an assessment may be adjusted on subsequent years and this will naturally impact the resulting scores. We also briefly discussed the benefits of doing RAM collaboratively with colleagues (slow but impactful) versus doing it alone (quick but lower impact).
Leg four
The anchor leg of any relay race is always the one you don’t want to miss, so I was pleased to be able to watch the exciting finale (which happened at 10pm here in the UK). First up we heard from Amanda Tomé from the Digital Research Alliance Canada. She mentioned that the RAM assessment she carried out this year was quite different from the one her colleague had completed in 2021 and though it appeared that scores had gone backwards, there were several possible reasons for this. The assessments were carried out using different versions of RAM. There were some changes from version 2 to version 3 of RAM which may have had an impact on scores. She also noted the subjectivity of doing an assessment like this and how different people may understand the challenges differently over time. She noted the importance of explaining and documenting the decisions around RAM and scope of the assessment and being able to articulate the context behind the changes (whether trending up or down) as more important than trying to demonstrate improvement all the time.
Echoing one of the themes from session 1, Amanda explained the flexible approach she took with RAM – focusing only on those areas that her team were responsible for. She did not think it would be helpful to score section C (Legal and ethical) or K (Discovery and access), as those sections were out of scope for the service, so she focused her attention on the other sections.
One of the tips she shared (as well as the importance of being honest about your capabilities) was to set up regular reviews of RAM across the year. A bit like Rachel MacGregor in session 3, she felt that once done, RAM shouldn’t be forgotten. She finds that having review and check in points across the year, to fit with other organizational processes, works well.
The final presentation of our RAM Jam relay race was from Rebecca Barnott-Clement from the Art Gallery New South Wales. It was really inspiring to hear about the First Nations First pilot project, ‘Collaborative Models of Care’. This involved introducing RAM to Indigenous Art Centres and working alongside them to explain and translate RAM. She noted that the language and understanding around digital preservation can be different in different communities, so communication was key. She took time to explain all the concepts within RAM in a slow and reflective way that made sense to the communities she was working with - bridging the gap between digital preservation concepts and cultural knowledge. Building relationships was an important part of the project so she took time to get top-down buy in for the project as well as informed consent from the participants.
The theme of RAM as a tool for advocacy and communication came up again. RAM provided a useful tool for the arts centres, allowing them to communicate about digital preservation with other similar organizations, but she also noted how it could be used within funding applications to demonstrate current capabilities and future ambitions.
It was encouraging to hear that RAM was a helpful tool in this context, that RAM concepts were not intimidating and allowed Indigenous communities to set culturally appropriate and achievable target levels for the future and to develop their own systems of care for their digital material. Bec noted the importance of the ‘First Nations First’ approach and the model of trust and respect that was followed.
Cool down
So that takes us to the end of the race. We loved taking our RAM Jam event around the world and appreciated how the talks and experiences shared built on each other. The speakers generously shared their experiences and tips on using RAM. There were no dropped batons, improper passes, illegal overtaking manoeuvres or false starts. We had a winning team!
We’ll be running (perhaps not literally) our next RAM Jam event in December 2025 so look out for that for another opportunity to share experiences with other DPC Members.