Skip to content

Latest Additions

You are here: Home > Publications > Stakeholder Analysis Final Report

Stakeholder Analysis

Final Report

Dr. E. V. Brack

31 March 2003

Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Stakeholders
  3. Questionnaire
  4. Results
  5. Comments
  6. Analysis and Proposals

Appendices

  1. Full list of stakeholders
  2. Effective list of stakeholders
  3. Questionnaire

1. Introduction

The development of the Information Environment Service Registry requires initial identification of potential stakeholders and clarification of any role they might be willing to play in the IESR project. Further analysis of stakeholder requirements can then progress by involving key stakeholders in detailed interviews and/or meetings.

2. Stakeholders

A list of 79 stakeholders (Appendix 1) was compiled using a number of sources including the list of stakeholders suggested in the Project scoping document, the list of JISC projects and services on the JISC website, and consultation with the Project team. Stakeholder details were added and verified as far as possible. Data on stakeholder contact details (contact name, telephone number, e-mail), type of project or service, type and subject of resource, and method of access (e.g. via MIMAS) were included in the list. As wide a range of stakeholder types as possible was included.

The Project team members then identified 22 key stakeholders out of the list of 79; these are:

  • AHDS
  • ALTIS
  • ANGEL
  • Athens
  • Ingenta
  • BIOME
  • Biz/ed
  • BUFVC
  • EDINA
  • EEVL
  • Geo-x-walk
  • Gazetteer
  • Go-Geo!
  • HILT
  • Hull university portal
  • Humbul
  • JISC
  • PSIgate
  • Virtual Learning Arcade RDNC
  • Sheffield university portal
  • SOSIG
  • Spatial data
  • VADS

Return to top

3. Questionnaire

Most stakeholder analysis methods assume that stakeholders are aware of a project and have already indicated an interest in it. As this project is not yet well known to others working in a similar area, it was decided to send out an initial short questionnaire to promote awareness and gauge interest. The questionnaire was circulated by e-mail on 21 January 2003 to all stakeholder names on the list; unfortunately in some cases it was not possible to e-mail to a specific individual and generic e-mail names had to be used, e.g. info@vads.ac.uk, scran@scran.ac.uk; not surprisingly, no responses were received from these stakeholders.

The initial circulation only elicited 9 responses within the two week deadline, so a further circulation by e-mail was made at the beginning of February, and a further 10 responses were received, making a total response of 19 out of 79, a rate of 24%. Some more replies were received in March after direct approaches to individuals and organisations, and after a presentation at the Collection Description Focus Showcase event at the British Library on 25 March. The final total of replies was 30 from 91 stakeholders (33% response)

The questionnaire asked the following questions (see Appendix 3):

1. Contact details
2a. General interest in the IESR
2b. Extent of possible involvement in the IESR (respondents could select more than one category):

  1. keep in touch with developments
  2. complete an in-depth questionnaire
  3. take part in a face-to-face or telephone interview
  4. take part in a brainstorming meeting

3a. Category of stakeholder (respondents could select more than one category):

  1. content provider
  2. content owner
  3. content administrator
  4. content related service, e.g. authentication
  5. portal developer
  6. end user of portal
  7. end user of IESR
  8. end user of other service
  9. JISC
  10. other content funding body
  11. other shared JISC services
  12. anything else

3b. Any other possible stakeholders not on the list
4a. Participation in the development of the IESR
4b. Collections that could be included in the IESR
5. Any comments

Return to top

4. Results

Although there were only 30 responses to the questionnaire, some of them covered more than one stakeholder in the list, for example the replies from MIMAS were actually on behalf of 16 projects and services, and some stakeholders were involved in more than one project and/or service. Consequently, 60% (30 out of 50 stakeholders) could be counted as having replied. The list of stakeholders is in Appendix 1 and a list showing the services and projects covered by the replies is in Appendix 2.

The majority of replies for the first two cirulations of the questionnaire came from JISC services and projects who would be expected to have a much greater interest in the IESR than other categories of stakeholder. Subsequent contacts elicited a broader spread of stakeholder type. Several stakeholders were unsure whether they could be included in the Registry, and made comments such as 'we are not a JISC project', 'we charge fees for our services'. Where possible, they were assured that their contribution would be welcome and asked for a completed questionnaire.

Many of those who did return the questionnaire were very keen to be involved and made useful comments (see section 5).

Details of results:

Question 2a: Are you interested in the development of the IESR?

Question 2a: Are you interested in the development of the IESR?
Answer Number Percentage
Yes 30 100
No 0 0

Question 2b: To what extent would you wish to be involved? (Respondents could select one or more answers)

Question 2b: To what extent would you wish to be involved? (Respondents could select one or more answers)
Answer Number Percentage
Keep in touch with developments 29 97
Take part in a meeting 19 63
Complete an in-depth questionnaire 16 53
Take part in an interview 14 47

Question 3a: In which stakeholder category would you place yourself? (Respondents could select one or more answers)

Question 3a: In which stakeholder category would you place yourself? (Respondents could select one or more answers)
Answer Number Percentage
Content provider 18 60
Portal developer 15 50
Content administrator 10 33
Content related service 9 30
Portal end user 9 30
Anything else 8 27
Content owner 7 23
End user of IESR 7 23
End user of other service 5 17
Other JISC shared service 5 17
JISC 3 10
Other funding body 1 3

Question 3b Are there any other potential stakeholders that we have not included in the list?

Other stakeholders suggested were:

  1. BECTA (FERL was contacted)
  2. Centre for Digital Library Research (CLDR), University of Strathclyde (this was included)
  3. EDS Management & Co-ordination Function at UKDA (MIMAS is a partner)
  4. ESRC/JISC Census Programme Co-ordinator (MIMAS is a partner)
  5. HEFCE, SHEFCE etc
  6. JISC Resource Guides (this project was contacted)
  7. LTSN Centres (LTSN Engineering was contacted)
  8. NHS/NELH
  9. Research funding councils
  10. Image Portal at SCRAN (SCRAN was contacted)

Question 4a Would you be prepared to take part in the development of the IESR?

25 out of 30 respondents said 'yes' (83%); one respondent omitted to answer this question but it is assumed that this would also be a 'yes'. The four respondents (13%) who replied 'no' were uncertain if they would be able to give any time to work on the project but were still interested in keeping in touch with developments.

Question 4b Which collections/services do you have that could be included in the IESR in the future?

Collection and services suggested for future inclusion were:

  1. Project deliverables from History On-Line (learning materials, web catalogues etc.), and potentially other material created by the Institute of Historical Research as part of its web service.
  2. LEMUR - database, virtual museums, course tools, course packages (N.B. other digital resources hosted by Aberdeen University Historic Collections http://www.abdn.ac.uk/diss/historic/)
  3. HILT: HaIRST FAIR project; SCONE database has over 3500 Scottish collections in it. Mainly libraries but also some archives. These collections go beyond HE and FE. Local collections at CDLR are included. CC-Interop will look at selectively exporting collections likely to be of interest to the registry but needs details of your requirements first.
  4. SOSIG Internet Catalogue; Social Science Search Engine
  5. MIMAS databases and services, including International Data - as part of ESRC/JISC ESDS, Census Data - as part of ESRC/JISC Census Programme, Satellite Data, CHCC project (5/99 consortium Project), Timeweb(5/99 project with ILRT), NLN (with EDINA)
  6. EDINA: Bibliographic services (Art Abstracts/Retrospective, Agdex, Biosis, CAB Abstracts, UPDATE, EconLit, Index to the Times, Palmers Index to Times, PAIS International, MLA International, Bibliography, Compendex, INSPEC, SALSER). Geographic data, services (Digimap, UK Agricultural Censuses, UK Borders), geoXwalk Gazetteer Project (proposed shared service), geo-data portal, Sound and Picture services (Education Media On-Line) Learning and Teaching (e-MapScholar, Jorum)
  7. University of Sheffield: Geobase, E Journals Collection, Library Catalogue
  8. INHALE: (INHALE)/INFORMS database (note: planned re-name of INHALE database to INFORMS in the not too distant future)
  9. BuilDNER collection of architectural images
  10. HERON: copyright clearance and digitisation service
  11. Virtual Norfolk collection
  12. BUFVC: TRILT database
  13. HUMBUL hub
  14. ANGEL: some LSE institutional resource collections e.g. archives, working-paper repositories
  15. Sheffield College: study skills materials, learning materials
  16. FERL: learning and teaching materials
  17. JISC Resource Guides
  18. Bliss Bibliographic Classification (BC2)
  19. Talis: catalogues and special collections covering 29% of UK HE institutions
  20. FAILTE/LTSN: searchLT service (engineering)

Return to top

5. Comments

1. JIBS User Group (Stuart Lee)

JIBS is an independent advisory body representing users of the IE; we could get nominations for you to assist in this [IESR development].

2. HOTBED

Copyright restrictions preclude wide access.

3. HILT

HILT terminologies server pilot has requirements as regards data held in registry. Also, CC-Interop needs to know how to output CLDs for use in registry. Portal developer: may be interested in using registry as well as SCONE Scottish collections database - depends on what is available data wise in the registry. We have well-developed ideas in Scotland about the role of collections databases and collection strengths/service details databases in the distributed information environment. These ideas are embedded in the CAIRNS dynamic landscaper and the SCONE and RCO databases. We expect to develop these further over the next 18 months in the context of a project funded by SLIC (Scottish Library and Information Council) which will, amongst other things, aim to expand CAIRNS cross-sectorally and develop centralised services to offer support to Scottish portals across all library sectors and perhaps beyond. It would probably be interesting to discuss this with you. And we may find it mutually beneficial. The project is called SPEIR (Scottish Portals for Education, Information and Research). We will be working with the Scottish Cultural Portal project in particular (funded by the Scottish executive and run by SLIC) Our half of the CC-Interop project will also be exploring CLD issues and 'regional' landscaping issues in CAIRNS and RIDING. Also, Gordon Dunsire of CDLR has written a report on CLDs in the UK landscape as part of CC-Interop. This has a number of recommendations which may be of interest to you. Hope we can work together on areas of overlap.

4. EDINA

Provided a long paper about GIS systems and metadata.

5. Virtual Norfolk

I thought this is what the DNER was supposed to be, so are we reinventing the wheel yet again? What mark up language are you intending to use? Will you be committed to using and developing open-source software, if so which are your favoured choices? What standards are you seeking to be compliant with? How is this to be paid for? What copyright issues might arise? Apart from our content, what other input might you expect from stakeholders and would this be reimbursed?

6. HUMBUL

It would be good if the project works with the Subject Portals Project (and other JISC portal developments) to ensure the most useful information is being captured and perhaps also to prioritise the description of services/resources identified for inclusion within portals. I think we would like to integrate a SOAP interface.

7. ANGEL

Another significant significant role that we envisage is that of authoritative editor - rather like the role played now (with far less automation) of subject specialist editors in subject gateways, such as SOSIG; or reflecting the current creation/maintenance of authoritative bibliographies such as the IBSS. My main interest (arising from ANGEL) is in the design/machinery of the IESR, rather than as a stakeholder in providing or using content directly.

8. JISC

My interest is in 'generalizing' the IE, or perhaps one should say the JISC middleware services, across a range of activities: the IE as the term has been used hitherto; learning and teaching; research, including e-science and the Grid; and so-called 'third stream' activities, i.e. relationships between colleges/universities and local communities, including heritage/culture/sport etc.

Other funding agencies such as NOF and BECTA are possible stakeholders.

Depending on how development goes, commercial publishers and vendors of library and learning systems are also potential stakeholders. The JISC currently have a call for proposal out that invites publishers to work within the JISC IE looking at interoperability metadata pilots (see http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=funding_5_03 for details). In addition, the UK Mirror Service should be taken into consideration - it might not be applicable - but we have asked them to create collection descriptions.

System Simulation Ltd

We are working on a project for Re:source and The 24 Hour Museum to provide the The 24 Hour Museum with a cross-searching facility based on OAI harvesting. We are also the technical partner implementing the JISC Image Portal demonstrator, which aims to use more of the CIE protocols. Both these portals would benefit from a formal means whereby the information providers could describing the services they have on offer. The Service Registry pilot project might have what we are looking for.

Bliss Classification Association

The BCA is currently looking at ways in which faceted classification could be used to structure enquiries made by portal end users (AHRB funded project based at UCL, working with AHDS). We would be keen to explore ways of making the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (2nd ed.) more widely available in electronic form, for possible use as a tool for organising subject metadata. BC2 is the only available general universal classification based on faceted principles. BC2 is a potential service for those interested in alternative approaches to subject terminology.

Talis Information Ltd

Talis is a supplier of resource discovery software that would aim to use the IESR to allow students to search across collections. We would also be interested in applying the description format within our products (i.e. so that the library collections they represent can be described and searched in the same way).

Return to top

6. Analysis and Proposals

The initial response rate of 24% (19 replies out of 79 individual stakeholders) is normal for a survey. Obviously some of the replies actually cover several services and projects (e.g. MIMAS and EDINA) so the effective response rate is actually higher. However, the responses are mostly from stakeholders already significantly involved with JISC service development; unfortunately, little was received from public libraries, museums, publishers, funding bodies or the FE sector, although there were some replies from these areas.

A number of key stakeholders had also not replied, these were:

  • AHDS
  • ALTIS
  • ATHENS
  • BIOME
  • Biz/ed
  • INGENTA
  • PSIgate
  • RDNC
  • VADS

The majority of the replies were very positive, wanting to be fully involved with developments: 63% are willing to attend meetings, while all would like to keep in touch with developments. Almost all the respondents wanted to participate in the IESR in the future, while those that did not want to actively participate were still interested in keeping in touch with developments.

60% of the stakeholders described themselves as 'content providers', while 'portal developers' was the second highest category at 50%; 'content administrators' and 'portal end users' scored 30%. This high percentage of portal developers, and potential end users, was a surprise but it seems that portal development is underway within many services, although perhaps still in the early stages.

Additional stakeholders were suggested, although some of these, e.g. the FE sector, had already been included. A lengthy list of services and collections was proposed for use in the IESR, although some respondents were uncertain whether they should be offering collections that did not allow for completely unrestricted access.

The replies to the questionnaire have been very positive on the whole, although the range of stakeholder type has not been as broad as was originally hoped for. However, knowledge of, and interest, in the IESR has grown in the few months of data collection and it is likely that further stakeholders will have an input into developments. The key stakeholders listed above who have not replied will be contacted.

Finally, a meeting for all those stakeholders who have already identified a strong interest is recommended, as this would be the most efficient way of conducting a more in-depth stakeholder analysis.

Further Analysis

In-depth stakeholder analysis would seek to specify the expectations, perceptions and constraints for each stakeholder, and to identify any gaps that might exist between expectations and perceptions. It would clarify the benefits of the project, the resources available, and any conflicting interests for stakeholders. The balance of stakeholder influence and importance on the development of the IESR should be investigated, in both the short term and the long term, as far as is possible within the project timescale.

The number of stakeholders (19) who have indicated that they are willing to attend a meeting when these issues can be discussed is ideal for this type of analysis, so it is recommended that this is arranged as soon as practicable. Advice on the structuring and content of such a meeting will be made available to the IESR Research Officer by the author of this report.

Return to top

Appendix 1: Full List of Stakeholders

  • A2Z - Akenti Access to zetoc
  • ADS
  • AHDS (key stakeholder)
  • ALTIS (key stakeholder)
  • ANGEL (key stakeholder)
  • Archives Hub
  • ARTWORLD
  • Athens (key stakeholder)
  • Beilstein Crossfire
  • Beilstein Crossfire - Learning & Teaching
  • BIC (Book Industry Communications)
  • BIDS/Ingenta (key stakeholder)
  • BIOME (key stakeholder)
  • Biota of Early Terrestrial Ecosystems, the Rhynie Chert
  • Biz/ed Virtual Learning Arcade (key stakeholder)
  • Bristol Biomed Images L&T (BB-LT)
  • British Library
  • BUFVC (key stakeholder)
  • BuilDNER
  • CC Interop
  • Census data
  • CETIS
  • Click & Go video
  • Collection of Historical & Contemporary Census Data (CHCC)
  • COPAC
  • Crafts Study Centre
  • Designing Britain 1945-1975
  • Digimap e-MapScholar
  • Digital Egypt for Universities
  • Docusend
  • EDINA (key stakeholder)
  • EEVL (key stakeholder)
  • FAILTE
  • FAIR Enough
  • FERL
  • FILTER
  • Geo-x-walk Gazetteer (key stakeholder)
  • Go-Geo! (key stakeholder)
  • HDS
  • HERON
  • HILT (key stakeholder)
  • History Online for Learning & Teaching
  • HOTBED
  • Hull university portal (key stakeholder)
  • Humanities Advanced Technology & Information Institute, University of Glasgow
  • Humbul (key stakeholder)
  • ICONEX
  • IESR; Cheshire
  • ILRT
  • INHALE
  • International data
  • ISI Web of Science
  • JIBS User group
  • JISC (key stakeholder)
  • JSTOR
  • LEMUR
  • LIFESIGN
  • LTSN Engineering
  • MIMAS
  • National Extension College
  • Oxford Text Archive
  • PADS
  • PORTAL
  • PSIgate (key stakeholder)
  • RDNC (key stakeholder)
  • Re:source
  • RESULTs Network
  • SCRAN
  • Sheffield College
  • Sheffield university portal (key stakeholder)
  • SOSIG (key stakeholder)
  • Spatial data (key stakeholder)
  • System Simulation Ltc
  • Textiles Collection
  • The Glasgow Story
  • Time Series Data
  • TRILT
  • UK Data Archive
  • VADS (key stakeholder)
  • Virtual Norfolk
  • X-grain
  • Z39.50 Broker (ZBLSA)
  • zetoc

Return to top

Appendix 2: Effective List of Stakeholders

  • AHDS: ADS, HDS, Oxford Text Archive, PADS
  • ALT
  • ANGEL
  • ARTWORLD
  • Athens
  • BIC (Book Industry Communications)
  • BIDS/ingenta: HERON
  • Biomed: Bristol Biomed Images L&T (BB-LT)
  • Biota of Early Terrestrial Ecosystems: the Rhynie Chert
  • Biz/ed: Biz/ed Virtual Learning Arcade
  • Bliss Classification Association
  • BUFVC: TRILT
  • CC Interop
  • CETIS
  • Click & Go video
  • Digital Egypt for Universities
  • Docusend
  • EDINA: Digimap e-MapScholar, Geo-x-walk Gazetteer, Go-Geo!, X-grain, Z39.50 Broker (ZBLSA)
  • FAIR Enough
  • FE colleges: Sheffield College
  • HILT
  • HOTBED
  • Hull university portal
  • Humanities Advanced Technology & Information Institute (HATII): The Glasgow Story
  • ICONEX
  • Cheshire
  • ILRT
  • INHALE (INFORMS)
  • JIBS User group
  • JISC
  • JISC Resource Guides
  • LEMUR
  • LIFESIGN
  • MIMAS: A2Z - Akenti Access to zetoc, Archives Hub, Beilstein Crossfire (Beilstein Crossfire - Learning & Teaching), Census data, Collection of Historical & Contemporary Census Data (CHCC), COPAC, ESDS, International data, ISI Citation Database, JSTOR, NLN, Spatial data, Time Series Data, Timeweb, Web of Science (ISI), zetoc/zetoc enhancements
  • National Extension College
  • NILTA
  • PORTAL
  • RDN/RDNC: ALTIS, BIOME, EEVL (FAILTE), Humbul (history Online for Learning & Teaching), PSIgate, SOSIG
  • Re:source
  • RESULTs Network
  • SCRAN
  • Sheffield university portal
  • System Simulation Ltd
  • TASI: FILTER
  • UK Data Archive
  • VADS: BuilDNER, Crafts Study Centre, Designing Britain 1945-1975, Textiles Collection
  • Virtual Norfolk

Return to top

Appendix 3: Questionnaire

JISC Information Environment Service Registry

The JISC Information Environment Service Registry (IESR) is a pilot project which has been funded by the JISC for the next 14 months under its Information Environment Development Programme.

You have been identified by the project team as being part of a project or service that may use or be used by the IESR, and so we are taking the opportunity to ask you for your input to this development. Below is some brief information about the project and stakeholder involvement. The IESR has a website at http://www.mimas.ac.uk/iesr/, and further information will be added here as work progresses.

The Information Environment Service Registry

The aim of the Service Registry is to form a machine-readable catalogue of the electronic resources available in the Information Environment. The idea is to enable portals and other services to discover which resources are available and appropriate for their users, through a machine-to-machine interface.

The Registry will contain a database of services available for users, which, in the pilot phase, will be a selected set of electronic resources, but the aim of the Service Registry in the future will be to hold a comprehensive listing of resources. The descriptions within the Registry will include technical information on how to access the resources as well as descriptive information about the services themselves (collection descriptions).

Stakeholder involvement

The project will identify the stakeholders and potential users of the service and analyse their requirements. This questionnaire is aimed at potential stakeholders to guage interest in, and possible influence on, the development of the IESR. This preliminary questionnaire aims to identify key stakeholders, and subsequently selected individuals may be asked to provide further input.

We would appreciate replies by Friday 24 January 2003. Please feel free to add comments at any point.

Thank you very much for your help,

Dr Verity Brack Stakeholder Analysis, IESR Project Team

Stakeholder Questionnaire

Please reply by 24 January 2003

1. Contact details
Name
Organisation
E-mail
Tel. no.

2. Interest in Information Environment Service Registry development

2.a Are you interested in the development of the IESR? Y / N
2.b If Yes, to what extent would you wish to be involved (please tick one or more):

  1. Keep in touch with developments?
  2. Complete an in-depth questionnaire?
  3. Take part in a face-to-face or telephone interview?
  4. Take part in 'brainstorming' meetings?

3. Stakeholders

3.a Assuming that you wish to be a stakeholder in the IESR development, in which of the following categories would you place yourself (please tick one or more):

  1. Content provider
  2. Content owner
  3. Content administrator
  4. Content related service e.g. access, authentication
  5. Portal developer
  6. End-user of portal
  7. End-user of service registry
  8. End-user of other service
  9. JISC
  10. Other content funding body
  11. Other shared services within the JISC Information Environment
  12. Anything else (please state):

3.b Are there any other potential stakeholders that we have not included in the attached list? Please add below:

4. Participation in the IESR development

4.a Would you be prepared to take part in the development of the IESR? Y / N
4.b Which collections/services do you have that could be included in the IESR in the future? (please list):

5. Any comments?

Thank you very much for your help,

Verity Brack, January 2003

Return to top