1. Cost-Benefit Models
WEBINAR: Digital Preservation Cost Models and Sustainability
Digital Preservation Cost Models and Sustainability
13 June 2013
Kirnn Kaur, British Library

2. Cost-Benefit Models: Introduction
Cost-benefit models research objectives
Cost models analysed
Costs vs benefits
Research – approach and methodology
Cost model analysis findings
Organizational infrastructure
Digital object management
Security risk management
Testing of cost models – overview
Survey results
Summary

3. Cost-benefit models research objectives
The objectives were to evaluate and test cost models for the preservation of digital objects:
Cost parameters
Review of published cost models and their cost parameters, to show how cost model parameters are concentrated or where areas of activity are not covered
Cost data collection and testing
Collect cost information to test published cost models
Survey
Current practice and requirements within research libraries (LIBER members)

4. Models analysed 1 of 4 CMDP - Cost Model for Digital Preservation
Estimates the costs of digital preservation (ingest, preservation planning and migrations, and archival storage), covers cultural heritage organisations
Still under development, tool available
Available on-line
Developed by the Royal Library of Denmark and the Danish National Archives
DANS cost model
Calculates the costs of archiving datasets, based on activity based costing and balanced scorecard, covers research data archives
Validation to be undertaken
Paper published on the model
Developed by DANS, Data Archiving and Network Services, Netherlands

5. Models analysed 2 of 4 DP4lib - Digital Preservation for libraries
Calculates costs by a service model for long term preservation services to third parties, covers any sector
Validation taking place this year
Paper published on the model
Developed by the DNB
KRDS – Keeping research data safe (KRDS + KRDS 2)
Provides lists of benefits and potential metrics for research data, is applicable more widely.
Toolkits - benefits analysis, value and impact - for proposals, evaluation and planning
Published factsheet, user guide
Development of toolkits funded by JISC partners in project include Charles Beagrie Ltd, UKOLN, DCC, UCL, UKDA, ADS, OCLC

6. Models analysed 3 of 4 LIFE3 – Life Cycle Information for E-literature
Looks at long-term costs of digital preservation for DP repositories
Third phase of the LIFE Project producing a predictive costing tool (not developed fully), excel version is available for use
Published excel tool and papers
Developed by UCL and BL, project funded by JISC and RIN
Presto PRIME – cost model for digital storage
Provides cost information and long term forecasting for mass digitisation of AV materials
Tools available and still under development
Published report
Developed within EC FP7 project

7. Models analysed 4 of 4 ENSURE project ISIS facility model
Estimates costs of digital preservation activities, assumes cloud storage is used, covers healthcare, clinical trials and financial sector, may be extended to manufacturing sector
Initial model to be developed further
Paper published “Towards a cost model for digital preservation”
Being developed by EC FP7 project, ENSURE (Feb 11 – Jan 14)
ISIS facility model
Applied specifically to long term preservation costs of data from ISIS facility at STFC (scientific research data)
Not applicable to other areas
Poster published
Developed as part of Cranfield University MSc project in collaboration with STFC

8. Costs vs benefits
Cost models in digital preservation tend to focus on measuring activities related to specific processes
Cost models reviewed provide a varied approach to measuring costs
Generally, benefits are not considered as an element of a cost model. However, two cost models which do consider benefits are:
KRDS - provides benefits framework and value chain and benefits impact tool
DANS - provides Balanced Scorecard methodology and reports on benefits through success factor and performance indicator categories
Overall, the relationship between costs and benefits falls within the framework of business cases

9. Approach and methodology
Analysis of cost models
To determine scope, access, strengths and weaknesses of published cost models
Mapping of cost parameters
ISO16363 to ascertain concentration of parameters and identify gaps and areas for further investigation and development
Assessing parameters against the activities audited would show whether cost models included specific functional elements of the ISO
Testing of cost models
Three cost models selected. Test data was used to carry out cost allocations across the models using various assumptions for apportionment of costs
Survey
Online survey, 101 respondents. Results analysed
Many different cost models have been published covering different elements of costs associated with repositories
Analysis of cost models
To determine which would be used for mapping exercise
Mapping of cost parameters – NB 1st step was to extract cost parameters
By mapping cost parameters to the trusted repositories standard we ascertain the concentration of parameters and identify gaps and areas for further investigation and development
Initially looked at mapping to the OAIS reference model and then expanded the cost areas by including organisational infrastructure and risk and security as in the ISO
Assessing parameters against the activities audited for an organisation to be certified as a trusted repository would show which cost models have assessed or evaluated these activities within their models through cost parameter definitions
Survey
Provided questions related to cost models
To find out whether cost models are used in practice

10. Analysis of cost models: main findings 1 of 4
All refer to OAIS reference model
Most cover digital preservation life cycle
Tailored to the needs of the models creators
Scope and sources of models
Tend to be provided
Use by others is difficult
Testing with external data rare
Access and availability of tools
Varying strengths, some fully functional although complex, tools provided
Weaknesses relate to their usability and adaptability
Strengths and weaknesses

11. Analysis of cost models: main findings 2 of 4
Overview
Some parameter definitions not easily aligned to standard
Some areas of standard not realistically measurable through a cost parameter
Inconsistent coverage of parameters across all areas. KRDS provides best coverage.
Organisational infrastructure
Governance, organisational viability
KRDS *, PrestoPRIME*
Organisational structure and staffing
CMDP, DANS, DP4LIB, KRDS, LIFE3
Procedural accountability, preservation policy
CMDP*, DP4LIB, KRDS, LIFE3, PrestoPRIME
Financial sustainability
DP4LIB, KRDS, LIFE3, PrestoPRIME*
Contracts, licenses and liabilities
DANS, DP4LIB, KRDS*, LIFE3
ISO
16363
Organisational infrastructure
Inconsistent coverage
Governance and organisational viability not covered – may be out of scope for some models, or not easily measurable
Organisational structure and staffing provides best coverage - key cost within any model
COST
MODELS

12. Analysis of cost models: main findings 3 of 4
Consistent coverage across most areas, as would be expected for cost models related to digital preservation
LIFE3 and ENSURE models provide parameters across all areas
Digital object management
Ingest: acquisition of content
CMDP, DANS, DP4LIB, KRDS, LIFE3, PrestoPRIME*, ENSURE, ISIS
Ingest: creation of AIP
CMDP, DANS, DP4LIB, KRDS*, LIFE3, PrestoPRIME*, ENSURE, ISIS
Preservation planning
CMDP, DANS, KRDS, LIFE3, ENSURE, ISIS
AIP preservation
CMDP, DP4LIB, LIFE3, ENSURE, ISIS
Information management
DANS, DP4LIB, KRDS, LIFE3, PrestoPRIME*, ENSURE, ISIS
Access management
CMDP*, DP4LIB, KRDS, LIFE3, PrestoPRIME, ENSURE
ISO
16363
Digital Object Management
All models analysed have coverage in this area – expected for a digital preservation cost model
Ingest process and access management have the best coverage
COST
MODELS

13. Analysis of cost models: main findings 4 of 4
Good coverage across the sections, although not consistent
Every cost model has cost parameters which match at least one of the two subheadings.
Infrastructure and security risk management
Technical infrastructure risk management
CMDP, DP4LIB, KRDS, LIFE3, PrestoPRIME, ENSURE, ISIS
Security risk management
CMDP, DANS, LIFE3, PrestoPRIME
ISO
16363
Infrastructure and security risk management
Good but limited parameters in this area
COST
MODELS

14. Testing of cost models – findings to date
Overview: Methods of costing activities and cost parameters definitions do not match across models. A common basis for comparison and apportionment of costs was difficult to find
Cost models tested:
DANS with DP4lib data
DP4lib with DANS data
LIFE3 with DP4lib data
Findings to date:
Good understanding of costs as well as their breakdown is needed
Comparison or harmonisation of cost models is very difficult. Minimum conditions:
high level approach needs to be adopted
more detail needed to allow users to apportion costs
assumptions made during creation, testing and validation of cost models need to be explicit

15. Survey results
Overview: Limited use of cost models although advantages widely accepted
Funding – cost models provide cost predictions
Management – involve key stakeholders in future development of cost models
Benefits and added value – cost models can provide tools
Controlling costs – very limited use although good understanding of the reasons for use of cost
Cost model requirements – validated, cover the digital preservation lifecycle, easy to use and freely available
Overview: Limited use although advantages widely accepted
Funding – could provide cost predictions with the use of a cost models
Management – decision makers as funders are key stakeholders and should be involved in the future development of cost models
Benefits and added value – cost models can provide tools for proposals, evaluations and planning activities
Controlling costs – very limited use of cost models in practice, although there is a good understanding of the reasons of their use e.g. to decision making, costing key DP activities, efficient use of resources
Cost model requirements – should be validated by similar organisations and cover the digital lifecycle. Should be easy to use and freely available

16. Survey results: cost model requirements Qn: on what basis would you select a cost model (n=73)?
Provides a framework or success criteria for future development of cost models

17. Summary Cost model work within APARSEN What next ?
Final report - end June 2013, published on project website
Brought together some of the cost model owners, some still in the development phase of their cost models
Fostered integration in the diverse area of cost modeling
Had a beneficial influence on future development of cost models
What next ?
Integration within sustainability topic continues (booklet to be produced in Sept 2013)
4C project interested in our findings (joint workshop later in year)
A lot of work has been done on cost models which is fragmented.
Cost model owners: STFC, DANS, DNB 4C
External benefits – provide a unified view to enable others to understand

18. Network of Excellence