Upload
jisc-keepit-project
View
1.915
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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 http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/keepit/
Citation preview
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 !