Documentation is important for any organization or project, and of course is also central to digital preservation good practice. It is necessary for moving forward with digital preservation maturity models such as DPC’s Rapid Assessment Model and the NDSA Levels of Digital Preservation. It is essential for providing evidence of processes when applying for digital preservation certification such as CoreTrustSeal or ISO16363. If you need further persuasion, a DPC blog post from Amy Rudersdorf of AVP provides a compelling list of reasons why we should all make time for documentation. 

Good documentation undoubtedly is good practice but it is not always given the attention it deserves. The OSSArcFlow project noted in 2020 in their Guide to Documenting Born-Digital Archival Workflows that: “the vast majority of today’s born-digital archiving activity is not well documented”.

There are many possible reasons for this. The OSSArcFlow project notes for example that: “most collecting institutions believe that their born-digital archiving workflows are still too ad hoc or nascent to deserve formal documentation.”

There is sometimes a reluctance to formalize processes and commit things to paper when they are still evolving, but there are many benefits to doing so (as discussed in ‘Why should we document?’).

It is a given that digital preservation practitioners need skills in creating documentation. The DPC’s Competency Audit Framework includes the skills around the production of documentation under the ‘Advocacy and Communications’ competency area and includes example tasks such as documenting procedures and workflows and producing technical documentation.

In 2022, the DPC heard from its Members that it would be helpful to be able to share experiences and tips on how to create documentation. In response to this, early in 2023 we ran a series of focus group meetings with the aim of facilitating knowledge exchange and an intention to gather the information shared into this online guide. 

Audience

This guide is aimed at digital preservation practitioners who must create, update and maintain digital preservation documentation as part of their work. It provides guidance on how to create and manage good documentation. An understanding of digital preservation concepts and processes is assumed.

Scope

‘Documentation’ in the context of this guide refers to documentation that is important for the day-to-day operation of digital preservation within an organization, for example recording how digital preservation tasks and procedures are carried out and how systems are integrated and configured. Documentation exists in the form of text and illustrations that can be shared with others - not as ideas that exist only in someone’s head! If a key member of your digital archives team unexpectedly left, would others be able to pick up their digital preservation work based on the available documentation? Would the operations of the digital archive be able to continue seamlessly and consistently? We focus in this guide on the types of documentation that would help to facilitate these goals.

There are however other types of documentation that are relevant to digital preservation, and these are considered to be out of scope for this guide:

• This guide does not cover digital preservation policy and strategy documents or documentation relating to high level planning, reporting or resourcing. Note that guidance on writing a Digital Preservation Policy can be found in the DPC’s Digital Preservation Policy Toolkit

• The guide does not cover documentation that helps to make individual records or datasets understandable.This may be the documentation that comes with digital content to enable others to interpret it, or documentation that is subsequently created by staff within the archive to enhance the usability of a particular dataset. 

• Also out of scope is Preservation Metadata (metadata about events, agents, rights and objects as described in the PREMIS data dictionary).

This guide provides advice on how to create and manage high quality documentation. It is aimed at digital preservation practitioners who create, update and maintain digital preservation documentation as part of their work.

In the context of this guide, ‘documentation’ refers to the documents that describe how digital preservation activities are carried out within an organization, for example recording a workflow or procedure, describing how to install and use a tool for a particular task or how digital preservation systems should be configured.

This guide discusses the importance of documentation, who it is for, and highlights some of the features of good and bad documentation. It goes on to provide some tips on creating documentation, including some of the tools or platforms available. Review and update of documentation is discussed, as are requirements for long term preservation.

This guide builds on the work of numerous members of the digital preservation community and brings together many good examples of digital preservation documentation. Our thanks go to all those DPC Members who engaged with discussions around documentation either through sharing their ideas in our focus groups, writing up or presenting case studies, or reviewing the text of the guide. Find out more about how this guide was created here.

	Introduction  An introduction to this guide, including audience and scope
	What, Why and Who of Documentation What should be documented? Why is it important? Who is it for?
	The Good and the Bad of Documentation What does good and bad documentation look like?
	Creating Documentation Tips for creating documentation, including tools, use of templates and style guides and the importance of testing
	Revising and Maintaining Documentation How to update, manage versions and communicate changes
	Preserving Documentation Does your digital preservation documentation need preserving for the long term?
	Interviews and Case Studies A selection of written interviews and presentations from community members discussing their documentation practices
	Further Resources Additional sources of information on documentation and helpful examples

Do contact us with comments and feedback to help us improve this guide.

Thanks to Tom Woolley for the illustrations.

Background

The idea of creating a Digital Preservation Policy Toolkit came from the University of Bristol’s request for help with creating their own organizational digital preservation policy. Rather than creating just one policy for one member, the DPC team decided to create a Preservation Policy Toolkit which would become available for all Coalition members. The Toolkit would be tested ‘on the fly’ whilst it was being developed, by staff from Bristol who would create a specific policy for their institution and feed back comments and suggestions to help refine the Toolkit.

The structure and content of the Toolkit was created in a three-day workshop that followed the format of a Book Sprint. The Sprint drew on an array of experience and resources that were gained throughout the SPRUCE Project as well as from the collaborative development of resources including the Digital Preservation Handbook and Executive Guide on Digital Preservation.

Each member of the Sprint team started by offering characteristics of their favourite digital preservation policies, and the example policies and discussion that came out of this session led to a clear direction of travel for the Toolkit. Content was created using successive iterations of brainstorming, writing down ideas, fleshing out text and multiple peer review in order to reach the end result. Google Drive proved to be an effective collaborative platform to develop the content, enabling multiple authors to work within the same document and the comment and feedback loop to occur rapidly. This blog post provides a more detailed description of the event.

Versions and history

Version 1 of the Digital Preservation Policy Toolkit was released to DPC Members in April 2020.

Version 2 of the Digital Preservation Policy Toolkit was released to the whole digital preservation community in March 2023. Revision and update was carried out by staff at the DPC and efforts were primarily focused on updating the template to refer to more recent policy examples. There is more information about how and why the toolkit was updated in this blog post.

Acknowledgements

This toolkit was created through the collaborative efforts of Stephen Gray, Emma Hancox, Debra Hiom, Hannah Lowery and Julian Warren from the University of Bristol; William Kilbride, Sarah Middleton, Jenny Mitcham and Paul Wheatley from the Digital Preservation Coalition; and invited experts Adrian Brown (Parliamentary Archives), Neil Grindley (Jisc), Edith Halvarsson (Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford) and Natalie Harrower (Digital Repository Ireland).

Thanks are owed to the University of Bristol for funding and hosting the Toolkit Book Sprint, and in particular for feeding the Sprint team!

Thanks go to Joost van der Nat at DDHN for translating the latest policy work at the DDHN for us, which was fed into the melting pot of information from which we built the Toolkit.

Thanks to Tom Woolley for the lovely illustrations - it was great to work with Tom again, after we last worked together on the Digital Preservation Business Case Toolkit as part of the SPRUCE Project.

Thanks go to Martin Klein and Herbert Van der Sompel for advice on using Robust Links and to Colin Armstrong for implementing them in version 1 of this Toolkit.

And finally, a big thank you goes out to all the authors of existing resources on this subject which we have attempted to distill, enhance and build into this Toolkit and those who have made their policies available online for others to access and learn from.

Information to guide future work on keeping your policy current and relevant. Use this to find out how to keep your preservation policy up-to-date.

A lot of work typically goes into developing and communicating a digital preservation policy. Its final approval and publication is cause for celebration within an organization but that does not mean your work is done. Like any other policy your digital preservation policy will need to be reviewed periodically and kept up to date to ensure its continued accuracy and relevance for your organization.

Frequency of review

Policies need to be reviewed at regular intervals, to ensure that they are reasonable, and that they remain current in terms of practice. When you are establishing your policy, you should develop a schedule for review alongside it that notes a timeline for review, and potentially the roles or personnel who will undertake the review.

When developing your review schedule, consider:

• If your policy needs to be reviewed by any other internal or external parties; if so, make sure they are named and notified as part of the review scheduling.

• Whether the policy needs to align with any higher-level policies or guidelines, either from organizational strategy documents, funder requirements, or legislative mandates (this may inform your review schedule).

• Whether there are any documented processes that may change over time and need to be amended in the document.

• Whether there are any new changes which need to be reviewed by particular committees/offices before they are accepted, and what institutional timelines need to be considered in your review schedule (e.g. does a policy oversight committee or similar meet at certain intervals?).

Digital preservation processes and technologies change quite rapidly, so a reasonable timeframe for a policy review is 3 to 5 years. Longer time frames may mean that the policy is out of date before it has been reviewed, while shorter time frames could be redundant or organizationally burdensome. This timeframe should inform the level of granularity covered by the policy: you should not include very specific details about, for example, the choice of a particular preservation format, if these details are likely to change frequently.

It is easy to set a schedule for policy review but not always so easy to stick to it! There are many 'live' digital preservation policies online that are several years out of date and where the published review date target clearly hasn’t been met. It is important therefore not just to note the review schedule on the document itself but also in your organizational calendars!

Remember though, that you don’t have to wait until your agreed time before you carry out a policy review. A policy can be reviewed at any point and you should certainly try and do so if you feel it has become out of date. It is better to review it earlier than expected than later!

A policy review exercise doesn't always need to be too onerous a task. The benefits of a frequent review cycle may be that only minor changes are necessary. If a policy hasn't been reviewed for some time, it is more likely to be a larger piece of work to review and update.

Case studies

There is an interesting case study about policy review published as a blog post from Adam Harwood from the University of Sussex. As he explains, his organization reviews and refreshes preservation policy annually and the commitment (and reminders) to do so comes from senior management.

• Policy Review - A Case Study from the University of Sussex - Adam Harwood (2023).

Another case study on the topic of policy review comes from Martin Gengenbach of the National Library of New Zealand who discusses some of the risks of lapsed policy documentation and the importance of relationship building when working in this space.

• Reviving Digital Preservation Policies at National Library of New Zealand - Martin Gengenbach (2022).

Keeping track of previous policies

As part of the process of policy update and review you should also consider what will happen to the superceded policy document. It is good practice to retain and preserve a copy of any previous preservation policy documents alongside the digital content you are preserving. Future generations of digital archivists (and indeed users) may find it helpful to see the evolution of digital preservation policy and a full history of policy documentation will provide valuable information to facilitate an understanding of decisions and approaches with regards to digital content at a certain point in time. Some organizations maintain this information internally (for example as described by Adam Harwood in his blog) and others have already taken steps to provide this information to their users.

• The Archaeology Data Service provides previous versions of their preservation policy for public download.

• The University of Cambridge provides access to their preservation policy via their institutional repository - note along with other useful metadata about the document, it also includes information about previous versions.

This section covers policy statements around the discovery of digital content and how access is provided for users. Policy principles may include a statement of the commitment to access along with high level principles that will guide this work.

University of Sussex

University of St Andrews

University of Cambridge

Wellcome Collection

National Archives of Australia

This section covers processes to create and maintain sufficient metadata to support preservation, discovery and use of preserved digital content. Topics covered in policy statements might include persistent identifiers, metadata to support rights or provenance of digital content, other types of metadata and standards.

British Geological Survey

University of Glasgow

University of Sussex

National Archives of Australia

This section covers processes to preserve the meaning, usability and functionality of the digital content over time.

Bodleian Libraries

University of the Arts London

The Postal Museum

Royal Danish Library

This section is about ensuring the organization effectively stores and protects the integrity of its digital content over time, for example by actively monitoring its content to protect against, identify and repair any corruption and unauthorized changes, and managing its content in a geographically diverse and robust technical infrastructure.

Bodleian Libraries

University of Sussex

The Postal Museum

National Archives of Australia

Wellcome Collection

This section covers an organization's processes for acquiring and transferring content into the digital archive. This is a substantial topic and examples found within policy principles include statements relating to communication with donors and depositors, transfer and ingest and selection and appraisal.

Bodleian Libraries

University of the Arts London

British Geological Survey

The Postal Museum

National Archives of Australia

This section is about how the organization engages with and contributes to the wider digital preservation community in order to advance its own capabilities and those of the community as a whole. Examples typically include a reference to external communities the organization will collaborate with, as well as a mention of internal collaboration within the organization itself. The two-way nature of this colleaboration is often mentioned, with organizations not only intending to gather information through collaboration but also to share their own knowledge and experience back.

Library and Archives Canada

University of St Andrews

Penn State University

Wellcome Collection

National Archives of Australia