1. JOINT SESSION RDA/WDS IG Cost Recovery Models IG Domain Repositories RDA P6, Paris, 23-09-2015

2. 2  15.30 - 16.00 presentation of survey results (20 min) and questions (10 min)  16.00 - 16.40 break-out groups: SWOT analysis of the different funding models  16.40 - 17.00 plenary wrap-up Session programme

3. 3 Remit from the case statement:  A contribution to strategic thinking on cost recovery by conducting research to understand current and possible cost recovery strategies for data centres  Report providing conclusions and recommendations about the appropriateness of different cost recovery models to different situations and the potential of data publication initiatives fitting into a cost recovery strategy The IG Cost Recovery objectives and deliverable

4. 4  Why is this work important?  Long-term sustainability of data repositories is under threat in US and Europe “Stakeholder and data volumes are growing rapidly and funding not following.”  Many repositories are seeking alternative models for cost recovery  They would like to know about each other’s efforts Motivation of the IG Cost Recovery

5. 5 What have we done?  Survey among digital repositories:  22 repositories interviewed  done by volunteers over phone/Skype  Each interview took at least 1 hour, following a script

6. 6 Quantitative Survey Results

7. 7

8. 8

9. 9 Quantitative survey results

10. Research Project Funder Research Performing Organisation Researcher / PI / Project 1.Structural (central contract) 2.Hosting Support (indirect or direct support through institutional hosting) 3.Annual Contract (from depositing institution) 4.Data Deposit Fee (may be paid by researcher, RPO or publisher; may originate with funder) 5.Access Charge (for the data or for value-adding services) 6.R&D Projects (to develop infrastructure or value-adding services) 7.Private Contracting (services to parties other than core funder) Data Centre / Archive (Structural) Infrastructure Funder Private Contracting

11. 11 Income streams in absolute numbers of repositories

12. 12 Term of funding for the main income stream (in %)

13. 13 Quantitative Survey Results

14. 14 Exploring alternative revenue streams

15. 15 Compatibility with the Open Access principle

16. 16 Funding options under consideration  Sponsorships  Contracts for specific services offered (hosting, archiving, curation)  Expanding the number of affiliated institutions  Deposit fees  Funders making more money available (given priority for data)  Specific services for the commercial sector (mentioned by one)  More services for national memory institutes

17. 17 Typology of funding models  Largely structurally funded  Reliant on data access charges  Exploring data deposit fees  Substantial diversification  Propped up by project funding  Supported by host institution

18. 18  Finalising the draft survey report on the basis of the input at RDA P6  Circulating the draft survey report among key stakeholders to get further input  Presenting the final conclusions and recommendations at RDA P7 Next steps

19. 19  Four broad funding models: 1.Largely structurally funded (including support by the host institution) 2.Reliant on data access charges 3.Exploring data deposit fees 4.Substantial diversification (including project funding) What are the plans, hopes and fears for the future (SWOT) if we look as these different funding models? Breakout groups: SWOT analysis

20. 20 STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIESTHREATS 1

21. 21 STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIESTHREATS 2

22. 22 STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIESTHREATS 3

23. 23 STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIESTHREATS 4