I can’t say that I learned anything particularly new from this final project of building and implementing a digital library. Instead, the experience reinforced my assumptions about implementing a collaborative project. I don’t mean to imply that the project wasn’t worthwhile. On the contrary, I appreciated the opportunity to work with my colleagues and explore new technologies. In many ways, this project has mirrored my experiences in the “real world” work environment. Our group members had varying degrees of knowledge and expertise and we had no one to guide us through the process. While this led to periods of frustration, we were able to work through the challenges and produce a fine result.
As the project comes to a close, here are my final reflections:
A digital library is only as good as the collection that it represents. As with any project, I think the quality of the end product relies on the quality of the original concept. From our first meeting as a group, we knew we had the potential for a great project given the extraordinary work of our group member, Joon Powell. Joon’s images tell a fantastic story. I think we were all excited about the prospect of sharing that story with a wider audience.
Collaboration is the key to success. As I mentioned above, each one of us came to the project with a different set of skills and experience. Additionally, we had to turn to individuals outside of our group for technical guidance (an important lesson: you have to be willing to seek and accept help when necessary). Everyone brought something new and relevant to the project. This collaborative effort allowed us to contribute our individual areas of expertise and to learn from one another.
Communication and flexibility are essential AND a great team is invaluable. Looking back, I think it is remarkable that we did not assign a project manager. By the end of our first meeting, we delegated individual responsibilities. Each one of us knew what we were supposed to do and accepted full responsibility/ accountability for making sure our tasks were complete. As all of our tasks were related to one another, there were times that a change in one area affected the design or progress in another area. We quickly learned that things don’t always go as planned. While we had a proposal to follow, we remained flexible in our approach. So, when complications or obstacles arose, we were able to either rework our plans or adapt. Despite not having a “leader,” we managed to make it work through constant communication with one another at each stage of the process.
Sometimes, you just have to make do with what you are given. I found the Omeka platform to be lacking in a few areas. For instance, the themes and user interface were dull and limiting. However, given our limited time (and nonexistent budget), we ultimately chose Omeka because it was free and quick. We also knew that we had access to technical guidance through the UT library (thank you Bridger!). I’ve encountered similar situations in my work experience. The decisions on choice of tools and equipment (such as hardware, software, ILS systems, etc.) are ultimately driven by the budget and not by functionality.
There's no substitution for hands-on experience. This is the second SIS course that I've taken that provided a direct opportunity for hands-on experience. I can't imagine that I would have had the same gratifying experience had I chosen to work individually on a traditional research paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment