4. Expected Outcomes. 
 1.	What do we hope to achieve by the end of these planning sessions? 
	A clear vision for the continued development (or replacement of?) the DSpace asset   	management tool and agreement within the community about the way forward.
 2.	What happens next? 
Development of a systems roadmap, detailing future technical development and resourcing required
		      Dissemination of plans within the community – ideally giving organisations using DSpace an 			opportunity to respond (use DCAT for this?).

 5.	Vision and Product Placement. 
 1.	What is unique about DSpace? 
	Out of the box solution – easy to adapt and run with minimal tech resource 
 2.	What important niche does it fill for you? 
		Asset management for my organisation: Oslo and Akershus University College of 		Applied Sciences. 
		We're running a few DSpace instances, one for peer-reviewed (or otherwise 			quality assured) scholarly materials such as academic papers, books and 			dissertations. 	We use this to comply with open access policies where these applies, 		such as the mandate from the Norwegian research council. 
		We also run a separate DSpace repository which the academic community at the 		University college can use to share other resources, be it teaching materials, 			publications etc. 
 3.	What about it provides value to your institution?  
�	It provides us with an efficient and trustworthy way of managing digital content on behalf of the institution. 
�	The fact that we can run it out of the box, and don't have to adapt the code in order to use the software is important. Ease of management and ongoing maintaintenance is crucial for us, as a small institution, with limited resource in particular in terms of staff time.  
 4.	What is your vision for DSpace over the next five years?  
Firstly, I would like to point out that for most organisations using DSpace in Norway, it seems to be working pretty well. It does the job, and the repositories around Norway are growing steadily as staff go about their business producing various types of scholarly content. My impression is also that with the launch of DSpace 3, the software has now reached a level of maturity and stability which is reassuring considering the fact that the repositories it supports are becoming core assets for a large number of organisations around the world.
In terms of future developments, I'm uncertain whether the best solution would be to start from scratch – establishing a new system with a more flexible architecture than the current system; or whether we should continue developing the existing codebase – both approaches have obvious drawbacks. Good solutions for upgrades/transitions to a new system is crucial here though, enabling the user community to keep going and to keep up with versions without too much resource being required.
As for my vision, I think there is a definite need for a solution like DSpace, easy to run out of the box, but with some flexibility for adaptations for organisations with resources to do so. For organisations with more advanced requirements, there is a question whether Fedora is a better option and I would expect the future DSpace to be well aligned with next generation Fedora.
 6.	Pain Points. 
 1.	What has been most frustrating about the use of DSpace at your institution? 
	The system architecture has grown increasingly complex over the years, and my 	impression is that it is difficult and time consuming for developers to work the software 	these days. I'm sure the developers present will have more to say about this. The question 	is how (or whether?) we turn the codebase around to be flexible, more modular and 	perhaps more lightweight to work with. While at the same time maintaining a solution which
	is compliant with previous versions, enabling easy upgrades.
	Locally we have been fighting some known bugs, but hope this will sort itself out 	when we upgrade to DSpace 3.  
 2.	What characteristics of DSpace stand in the way of fulfilling your vision for the product? 
		The complexity of the codebase, I think the systems architecture could also use an update.

 7.	Brainstorm: Use Cases and Associated Features. 
 1.	What Use Cases are important for your institution over the next five years? 
�	OA repository – supporting green archiving of academic papers etc.
�	Dissertation repository
�	We are looking for solutions to manage our meda assets – high resolution video and audio. DSpace may turn out to be the solution we need.

 2.	What are the associated features that need to be supported? 
The key one I'd like to see would be improved APIs. Better APIs will enable displaying and disseminating resources outside the system and will improve the flexibility of the system greatly.
Better support for complex objects, and the expression of relationships between objects would be useful. 
 3.	What kind of content needs to be supported? 
I'd like to see DSpace continue being content agnostic like before as this enables small organisations (which forms a large proportion of the user community) to use it for all asset management needs (larger institutions organisations have in my experience access to developer resources and will therefore be able to tailor the system to their needs).