The document discusses the costs, policies, and benefits associated with long-term digital preservation of research data, highlighting findings from multiple studies and a cost framework. It emphasizes the need for effective digital preservation policies in institutions, providing models and insights into cost variables and strategies for implementation. The analysis reveals that staff costs are a significant factor, and the relationship between costs and benefits is crucial for planning and decision-making in digital preservation.

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

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

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

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

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

10. 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”

11. 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

12. 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”

13. Questions?

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

15. 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

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

17. 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 .

18. Questions?

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

20. 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)

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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?

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

26. 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

27. Questions?

28. 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 !