Costs, Policy, and Benefits in Long-term Digital Preservation, by Neil Beagrie
-
Upload
jisc-keepit-project -
Category
Technology
-
view
1.915 -
download
0
description
Transcript of 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 Safe1JISC 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
FindingsInstitutional 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 Safe2JISC 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?
ConclusionsLIFE1 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 !