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


Published on

This presentation describes Keeping Research Data Safe (KRDS) a model, method and survey for assessing the institutional costs for managing and looking after research data. It was given as part of module 2 of a 5-module course on digital preservation tools for repository managers, presented by the JISC KeepIt project. For more on this and other presentations in this course look for the tag 'KeepIt course' in the project blog

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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

  1. 1. Costs, Policy, and Benefits in Long-term Digital Preservation Neil Beagrie Keepit Training Course Southampton Feb 2010
  2. 2. Agenda <ul><li>Costs – Keeping Research Data Safe 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Policy – Digital Preservation Policies Study </li></ul><ul><li>Benefits – Keeping Research Data Safe 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul><ul><li>Introduction to Group Exercise </li></ul>
  3. 3. Keeping Research Data Safe1 JISC Research Data Digital Preservation Costs Study (co-authors Brian Lavoie, Julia Chruszcz,+institutions)
  4. 4. Overview <ul><li>KRDS1 Aim – investigate costs, develop model and recommendations </li></ul><ul><li>Method – detailed analysis of 4 models: LIFE1/2 & NASA CET in combination with OAIS and UK Research TRAC; </li></ul><ul><li>Plus literature review;12 interviews; 4 detailed case studies. </li></ul>
  5. 5. What was Produced? <ul><li>A cost framework consisting of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>activity model in 3 parts: pre-archive, archive, support services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Key cost variables divided into economic adjustments and service adjustments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Resources template for Transparent Costing (TRAC) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>4 detailed case studies (ADS, Cambridge, KCL, Southampton) </li></ul><ul><li>Data from other services. </li></ul>
  6. 6. Putting it all together <ul><li>Activity model helps identify cost allocations across preservation process </li></ul><ul><li>Service adjustments helps identify and adjust costs to specific requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Economic adjustments help spread these costs appropriately over time </li></ul><ul><li>Resource framework : pulls all of it together into a TRAC-friendly costing model </li></ul>
  7. 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. 8. Findings <ul><li>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) </li></ul><ul><li>Efficiency Curve effects – start-up to operational </li></ul><ul><li>Economy of scale effects – Accession rates of 10 or 60 collections - 600% increase in accessions will only increase costs by 325% (ULCC) </li></ul><ul><li>“ First mover innovation” – costs of being first to solve a problem and how to finance this. </li></ul>
  9. 9. Findings <ul><li>National subject repositories costs (UKDA) </li></ul>Acquisition and Ingest Archival Storage and Preservation Access c. 42% c. 23% c. 35%
  10. 10. Findings <ul><li>ADS projection of long-term preservation costs </li></ul><ul><li>Preservation interventions (file format migrations) </li></ul><ul><li>Long-term storage costs </li></ul><ul><li>Assumptions of archive growth (economies of scale) </li></ul><ul><li>Assumptions on “first mover innovation” </li></ul>
  11. 11. Findings <ul><li>Staff costs most significant factor (c 70%) </li></ul><ul><li>Unit costs – examples in Case studies for Archaeology, Chemistry, Humanities </li></ul><ul><li>However costs depend on the adjustments (key cost variables) </li></ul><ul><li>Like restaurant meals – final bill and unit costs depend on the choices and volume </li></ul>
  12. 12. What was New? <ul><li>FEC and TRAC friendly– not in or partial in other models but </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requirement for HEIs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Absence of FEC (a) distorts business cases e.g. for automation (b) cannot accurately compare in-house or out-source costs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Included pre-archive phases – not solely archive centric </li></ul><ul><li>Not an implementation- customisable - application neutral – can cost for in-house archive, full or partial shared service(s), national/subject data centre archive charges </li></ul><ul><li>Tailored for research data: different collection levels, products from data, etc </li></ul><ul><li>Whole of Service costing/Seeing “Big Picture” </li></ul>
  13. 13. Questions?
  14. 14. The JISC Digital Preservation Policies Study (co-authors Najla Rettberg and Peter Williams)
  15. 15. Overview <ul><li>The Challenge – too few digital preservation policies in institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Study Aim – to support institutions wishing to create digital preservation policies and enhance their impact </li></ul><ul><li>For UK HE/FE but of much wider relevance and interest </li></ul>
  16. 16. The Model Policy <ul><li>Eight generic clauses </li></ul><ul><li>Mapped principle strategic themes in HEIs </li></ul><ul><li>Exemplars, useful references, quotes </li></ul><ul><li>Separate section for Guidance and Implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Annotated bibliography </li></ul>
  17. 17. Conclusions <ul><li>A major business driver in all institutions has been harnessing digital content and electronic services for access </li></ul><ul><li>Long-term access and future benefit will be heavily dependent on relevant digital preservation policies being put in place... </li></ul><ul><li>....and underpinned by implementation procedures . </li></ul>
  18. 18. Questions?
  19. 19. Keeping Research Data Safe2 JISC Research Data Digital Preservation Costs Study (co-authors Brian Lavoie, Matthew Woollard,+ partner institutions)
  20. 20. Aims <ul><li>Review and re-format KRDS1 Activity Model ( KRDS2 models now available ) </li></ul><ul><li>Identify/Survey Sources of Cost Information ( KRDS2 survey now available ) </li></ul><ul><li>New in Depth Cost Studies (Oxford, ADS, ULCC, UKDA) </li></ul><ul><li>Analysis and Framework of Benefits </li></ul><ul><li>Benefits studies (UKDA, Soton, Oxford) </li></ul>
  21. 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. 22. Benefits Framework <ul><li>Some benefits can be costed (direct or counter-factual) </li></ul><ul><li>Some benefits can be measured in other ways </li></ul><ul><li>Some benefits only have qualitative metrics </li></ul>
  23. 23. Concluding Thoughts... <ul><li>Cost framework helpful for planning and analysis (both internally and cross-project) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Off-the-shelf” but flexible cost framework facilitates implementation across very different disciplines </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ What does it cost?” = “It depends” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Evidenced by service adjustments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Choices shape preservation strategy, which determines overall cost </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cost Framework not just for internal budgeting purposes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Outsourcing: need to map requirements to costs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>More work needed on “non-centralised” research data </li></ul><ul><li>More work needed on identifying and expressing benefits </li></ul>
  24. 24. Concluding Thoughts... <ul><li>Costs and benefits umbilically linked </li></ul><ul><li>Cost/Benefit Analysis behind business cases and has links to policy </li></ul><ul><li>KRDS1/Policies/KRDS2 provide a set of tools and guidance </li></ul><ul><li>Other Tools out there – how does this fit in? </li></ul>
  25. 25. Conclusions <ul><li>LIFE1 LIFE2 LIFE3 </li></ul><ul><li>KRDS1 KRDS2 </li></ul><ul><li>........................NASA CET........................ </li></ul><ul><li>...........................OAIS.................................. </li></ul><ul><li>.........................UK TRAC............................. </li></ul>
  26. 26. Further Information <ul><li>“ Keeping Research Data Safe” (KRDS1)Final report and Executive Summary at </li></ul><ul><li>“ Digital Preservation Policies Study” Final Report and Appendices at </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>Keeping Research Data Safe2 (KRDS2) webpage at </li></ul>
  27. 27. Questions?
  28. 28. Group Exercise <ul><li>Agree a spokesperson and “recorder” </li></ul><ul><li>Using KRDS2 Benefits Taxonomy: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Q1 Identify which benefits can be costed? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Q2 Select 3 Key benefits (include costed and uncosted) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Q3 Identify the information you might need for measuring them </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Report back at 12.10 ! </li></ul>