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 !