Difference between revisions of "Project Goals"
m |
(Comment added.) |
||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
[[Comments]] | [[Comments]] | ||
------ | ------ | ||
| + | ------ | ||
| + | ''2012-08-13 11:22:24'' [[nbsp]] Stuart, do you have data from your AHRC crowdsourcing literature review or May workship which will help us think about our productivity targets and productivity variance between indviduals, teams, and over time? What benchmark projects would you suggest we think about? --[[Users/ColinGreenstreet|Users/ColinGreenstreet]] | ||
Revision as of 10:22, August 13, 2012
Project Goals
Editorial history
08/08/12: WT, created page
Contents
Purpose of this page
This page sets out the primary goals of the project. It also suggests standards by which we should measure our performance against these goals and seeks a discussion of these proposed standards and measurement processes with the project team
Suggested links
Project Goals
What have we said?
Our website: "MarineLives is an innovative academic project for the collaborative transcription, linkage and enrichment of primary manuscripts, which were originated in the High Court of Admiralty, London, 1650-1669. The end product will be a publicly and freely available online academic edition."
Two primary goals
- Content: Delivery of a public and freely available online academic edition (within reasonable time)
- Process: Develop and demonstrate effective innovative approach to collaborative transcription, linkage and enrichment of primary documents
Suggested standards
Content
- Quality of textual output
- Quantity of textual output
Process
- Creativeness, effectiveness and efficiency of project process
Energy
- Unanticipated benefits
Possible measurement
Content
- Nominate named expert individuals in advance, not directly involved in the project, to assess the quality of the content?
- Who?
- Benchmark the quality and quantity of the content against other reference content; the reference content to be agreed in advance?
- What content? How define quality?
- Willingness of academics to formally cite content from MarineLives project?
- Self-evaluation by team members of quality of content?
Process
- Creativeness:
- Evaluation by named expert individuals of project processes?
- Self-evaluation by team members of creativity of project processes?
- Effectiveness:
- Deliver desired content goals?
- Objective feedback solicited from team members following conclusion of the project regarding the project experience?
- Efficiency:
- Output relative to input costs (total monetary costs; and money equivalent of volunteer time and other resources voluntarily made available to the project)?
- Extent to which rework is avoided in the project?
Energy
- Undergraduate dissertation topics influenced by involvement of undergraduate project associates in MarineLives?
- Journals article submitted and approved making reference to the MarineLives project?
- Year thirteen student admissions to university assisted by involvement of school students in MarineLives?
- Potential funders (individuals and/or companies and/or institutions) approach core team following project seeking to explore possible funding of a project extension or project spinoff?
- Desire of project participants to work together again?
Questions to project team
- What transcription productivity targets should we set ourselves?
- Individual productivity?
- Facilitator team productivity?
- Minutes/hours per standard page for first cut unedited transcription?
- Minutes/hours per standard page for first full edit?
- Minutes/hours per standard page for page signoff?
- How should we expect productivity of individuals and teams to change over fourteen week project?
2012-08-13 11:22:24 nbsp Stuart, do you have data from your AHRC crowdsourcing literature review or May workship which will help us think about our productivity targets and productivity variance between indviduals, teams, and over time? What benchmark projects would you suggest we think about? --Users/ColinGreenstreet
