Costs and Benefits in KRDS and I2S2 Neil Beagrie RAL Feb 2010

Agenda Costs – Keeping Research Data Safe 1 Benefits – Keeping Research Data Safe 2 I2S2

Keeping Research Data Safe1 JISC 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.

KRDS Pre-Archive Phase Outreach Initiation Creation Archive Phase Acquisition Disposal Ingest Archival Storage Preservation Planning First Mover Innovation Data Management Access Support ServicesAdministration Common Services Estates

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

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

Keeping Research Data Safe2 JISC 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) DirectIndirect (costs avoided) Dimension 2 (When) Near-Term BenefitsLong-term Benefits Dimension 3 (Who) PrivatePublic

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

Some 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/dissemination strategy, which determines overall cost More work needed on non-centralised research data More work needed on identifying and expressing benefits

I2S2

Questions?

Further Information Keeping Research Data Safe (KRDS1)Final report and Executive Summary at ns/keepingresearchdatasafe.aspx ns/keepingresearchdatasafe.aspx Keeping Research Data Safe2 (KRDS2) webpage at