Output – Life2 – Final Report – INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY CASE STUDIES (Section4)

Output Name: Output – Life2 – Final Report – INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY CASE STUDIES (Section4)


Date Released:22/08/08

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/11758/1/11758.pdf

Summary of contents: Covers institutional repository case studies looking at digital curation costings over a 10 year period in institutions:

SHERPA DP Case Study outlines the mapping of the repository services that Centre for e-research (previously AHDS) provide to the LIFE Model.

Conclusions to this study are found at 4.3.11
See Summary of costings found in spreadsheet:
Page 52 and 53 has the key findings summarised in a table and conclusions to this case study, namely:
As a largely automated service, SHERPA DP could offer significant cost savings with
increased quantity. During the next phase of SHERPA DP, the team will test larger ingest
actions which will allow a new unit cost over time to be calculated, one which should validate
this assertion. These new costs will help efforts to demonstrate the viability of a third-party
preservation service.
In this Case Study, bit-stream preservation was identified as the major cost area. Therefore, the team needs to ensure that it has the cheapest acceptable storage infrastructure, efficient system administration procedures, reporting mechanisms, etc.


See http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/9032/3/9032.xls

has been split into three repository Case Studies:

Key conclusions are:
The costs indicated here should be regarded as illustrative, rather than absolute, because
of several factors, among them the patchwork nature of repository funding; the need to base
some costs on assumptions about future growth, expenditure, and preservation requirements;
differences in costing methods and interpretations of the LIFE v1.1 model.
Table 32 – Overall Costs for SHERPA-LEAP Repositories
Goldsmiths £31.50 £32.00 £32.20 (year 1, Year 5, Year 10)
Royal Holloway £23.10 £23.60 £23.90 (year 1, Year 5, Year 10)
UCL £15.00 £16.50 £16.70  (year 1, Year 5, Year 10)
The variations in costings between the institutions may be attributed to three factors. First,
the caveats already listed at 7.1 above apply. Second, the narratives show staff on different
grades, in differing proportions, working in the repositories. This naturally affects the
costings. As IRs become more stable, staff gradings and roles are likely to become
regularised, and comparison across the HE community will become more informative.
Finally, the studies show that the fact that Goldsmiths handles a widened range of digital
materials within its institutional repository structure increases the average handling cost per
After year one, the main lifecycle costs are those associated with preservation. Bit-stream
preservation costs are based on estimates, both of repository growth and the technology
marketplace. Content preservation will clearly bring costs for the partners in future, but for
the time being, those costs are not easily predictable.
The partners were unsure whether the model would, in practice, be able to meet the stated
aspiration of providing a basis for inter-institutional comparison, and were equally unsure
whether support for inter-institutional comparison should be the primary purpose of such a

Additonal information:


%d bloggers like this: