Costs, Policy, and Benefits in Long-term Digital Preservation, by Neil Beagrie

Costs, Policy, and Benefits in Long-term Digital Preservation Neil Beagrie Keepit Training Course Southampton Feb 2010

Agenda
Costs – Keeping Research Data Safe 1
Policy – Digital Preservation Policies Study
Benefits – Keeping Research Data Safe 2
Conclusions
Introduction to Group Exercise

Keeping Research Data Safe1 JISC Research Data Digital Preservation Costs Study (co-authors Brian Lavoie, Julia Chruszcz,+institutions)

Overview
KRDS1 Aim – investigate costs, develop model and recommendations
Method – detailed analysis of 4 models: LIFE1/2 & NASA CET in combination with OAIS and UK Research TRAC;
Plus literature review;12 interviews; 4 detailed case studies.

What was Produced?
A cost framework consisting of:
activity model in 3 parts: pre-archive, archive, support services
Key cost variables divided into economic adjustments and service adjustments
Resources template for Transparent Costing (TRAC)
4 detailed case studies (ADS, Cambridge, KCL, Southampton)
Data from other services.

Putting it all together
Activity model helps identify cost allocations across preservation process
Service adjustments helps identify and adjust costs to specific requirements
Economic adjustments help spread these costs appropriately over time
Resource framework : pulls all of it together into a TRAC-friendly costing model

Findings Institutional Repository (e-publications): Staff Equipment (capital depreciated over 3 years) Annual recurrent costs 1 FTE £1,300 pa Federated Institutional Repository (data): Annual recurrent costs Staff Equipment (capital depreciated over 3 years) Cambridge 4 FTE £58,764 pa KCL 2.5 FTE £27,546 pa

Findings
Timing. costs c. 333 euros for the creation of a batch of 1000 records. Once 10 years have passed since creation it may cost 10,000 euros to ‘repair’ a batch of 1000 records with badly created metadata (Digitale Bewaring Project)
Efficiency Curve effects – start-up to operational
Economy of scale effects – Accession rates of 10 or 60 collections - 600% increase in accessions will only increase costs by 325% (ULCC)
“ First mover innovation” – costs of being first to solve a problem and how to finance this.

Findings
National subject repositories costs (UKDA)
Acquisition and Ingest Archival Storage and Preservation Access c. 42% c. 23% c. 35%

Findings
ADS projection of long-term preservation costs
Preservation interventions (file format migrations)
Long-term storage costs
Assumptions of archive growth (economies of scale)
Assumptions on “first mover innovation”

Findings
Staff costs most significant factor (c 70%)
Unit costs – examples in Case studies for Archaeology, Chemistry, Humanities
However costs depend on the adjustments (key cost variables)
Like restaurant meals – final bill and unit costs depend on the choices and volume

What was New?
FEC and TRAC friendly– not in or partial in other models but
Requirement for HEIs
Absence of FEC (a) distorts business cases e.g. for automation (b) cannot accurately compare in-house or out-source costs
Included pre-archive phases – not solely archive centric
Not an implementation- customisable - application neutral – can cost for in-house archive, full or partial shared service(s), national/subject data centre archive charges
Tailored for research data: different collection levels, products from data, etc
Whole of Service costing/Seeing “Big Picture”

Questions?

The JISC Digital Preservation Policies Study (co-authors Najla Rettberg and Peter Williams)

Overview
The Challenge – too few digital preservation policies in institutions
Study Aim – to support institutions wishing to create digital preservation policies and enhance their impact
For UK HE/FE but of much wider relevance and interest

The Model Policy
Eight generic clauses
Mapped principle strategic themes in HEIs
Exemplars, useful references, quotes
Separate section for Guidance and Implementation
Annotated bibliography

Conclusions
A major business driver in all institutions has been harnessing digital content and electronic services for access
Long-term access and future benefit will be heavily dependent on relevant digital preservation policies being put in place...
....and underpinned by implementation procedures .

Questions?

Keeping Research Data Safe2 JISC Research Data Digital Preservation Costs Study (co-authors Brian Lavoie, Matthew Woollard,+ partner institutions)

Aims
Review and re-format KRDS1 Activity Model ( KRDS2 models now available )
Identify/Survey Sources of Cost Information ( KRDS2 survey now available )
New in Depth Cost Studies (Oxford, ADS, ULCC, UKDA)
Analysis and Framework of Benefits
Benefits studies (UKDA, Soton, Oxford)

Benefits Framework KRDS2 Benefits Taxonomy Dimension 1(Type of Outcome) Direct Indirect (costs avoided) Dimension 2 (When) Near-Term Benefits Long-term Benefits Dimension 3 (Who) Private Public

Benefits Framework
Some benefits can be costed (direct or counter-factual)
Some benefits can be measured in other ways
Some benefits only have qualitative metrics

Concluding Thoughts...
Cost framework helpful for planning and analysis (both internally and cross-project)
“ Off-the-shelf” but flexible cost framework facilitates implementation across very different disciplines
“ What does it cost?” = “It depends”
Evidenced by service adjustments
Choices shape preservation strategy, which determines overall cost
Cost Framework not just for internal budgeting purposes
Outsourcing: need to map requirements to costs
More work needed on “non-centralised” research data
More work needed on identifying and expressing benefits

Concluding Thoughts...
Costs and benefits umbilically linked
Cost/Benefit Analysis behind business cases and has links to policy
KRDS1/Policies/KRDS2 provide a set of tools and guidance
Other Tools out there – how does this fit in?

Conclusions
LIFE1 LIFE2 LIFE3
KRDS1 KRDS2
........................NASA CET........................
...........................OAIS..................................
.........................UK TRAC.............................

Further Information
“ Keeping Research Data Safe” (KRDS1)Final report and Executive Summary at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/keepingresearchdatasafe.aspx
“ Digital Preservation Policies Study” Final Report and Appendices at
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/jiscpolicyfinalreport.aspx
Keeping Research Data Safe2 (KRDS2) webpage at www.beagrie.com/jisc.php

Questions?

Group Exercise
Agree a spokesperson and “recorder”
Using KRDS2 Benefits Taxonomy:
Q1 Identify which benefits can be costed?
Q2 Select 3 Key benefits (include costed and uncosted)
Q3 Identify the information you might need for measuring them
Report back at 12.10 !

Costs, Policy, and Benefits in Long-term Digital Preservation, by Neil Beagrie

by JISC KeepIt project on Feb 16, 2010

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 3

Statistics

Costs, Policy, and Benefits in Long-term Digital Preservation, by Neil Beagrie — Presentation Transcript