Output – LIFE2 – Economic evaluation of LIFE methodology

Output Name: Output – LIFE2 – Economic evaluation of LIFE methodology

Title: Economic evaluation of LIFE methodology
Number of pages or page numbers: 26 pages
Section:

Date Released:

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/7684

Summary of contents: Validation of the economic modelling and methodology for the Lifecycle and Generic Preservation formulae developed in Phase 1 of the LIFE project, with technical and presentational development of the models. Cloudlake Consulting Oy carried out this evaluation.  The major conclusions are on page 16:

All in all there seem to be two major application areas for the LIFE models:

  • Institutional repositories, which span a range of object types that are likely to populate the IR of a particular university.
  • Specialised collections of national libraries and similar organisations, which have a national and sometimes legal obligation to long-term archiving.
In the latter case it seems more sensible to apply the model to individual collections than to
the totality of objects stored in say a national library.
In such a case it is important for a national library, which works within budget restrictions, to be able to compare the long term preservation costs of different collections, in order to make informed priority decisions. This is in contrast with the Institutional Repository Case.
An important point which could have far-reaching consequences for the parameters of the
model is how institutional repositories (which are numerous) are going to solve the
preservation management issue. In contrast to national institutions such as the British Library,
universities would gain very obvious benefits from sharing resources for preservation, for
instance via consortia, outsourcing, using external service providers etc. A good case is for instance the technology watch function included in the model. One can argue if there is a need for every university to
duplicate this effort. A more sensible approach would be for certain service providers to
assume the responsibility for issuing guidelines.

Additional information:

Comments:

Output – LIFE2 – Workflow for British Library Newspapers Case Study – Legal Deposit of Newspapers

Output Name: Output – LIFE2 – Workflow for British Library Newspapers Case Study – Legal Deposit of Newspapers

Title: Workflow for British Library Newspapers Case Study – Legal Deposit of Newspapers
Number of pages or page numbers:1
Section:

Date Released: 03/09/2008

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/9061/4/9061_Legal_deposits_workflow.pdf

Summary of contents: Pdf version of Visio Workflow for the British Library Newspapers Case Study – Legal Deposit of Newspapers

Output – Life2 – Workflow for British Library Newspapers Case Study – Burney Digital Newspapers

Output Name: Output – Life2 – Workflow for British Library Newspapers Case Study – Burney Digital Newspapers

Title: Workflow for British Library Newspapers Case Study – Burney Digital Newspapers
Number of pages or page numbers:1
Section:

Date Released: 03/09/2008

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/9061/5/9061_Burney_collection_workflow.pdf

Summary of contents: Pdf version of Visio Workflow for the British Library Newspapers Case Study – Burney Digital Newspapers

Output – Life2 – Output – Life2 -Spreadsheet for British Library Newspapers Case Study – Legal Deposit of Newspapers

Output Name: Output – Life2 –Spreadsheet for British Library Newspapers Case Study – Legal Deposit of Newspapers

Title:Spreadsheet for British Library Newspapers Case Study – Legal Deposit of Newspapers
Number of pages or page numbers: 4 tabs

Date Released:27 November 2008

URI for Output:http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/9061/6/9061_Legal_Deposit_Spreadsheet.xls

Summary of contents:This spreadsheet contains the exact costings for the SHERPA Leap Case Study.  The  Spreadsheet has 4 tabs

Tab1 – Introduction

Tab2 – Life Cycle Processes and Costs

Tab3 – Acoronyms and staff costs

Tab4  – Summary

Additional information:    Useful spreadsheet containing costings.

Output – Life2 – Spreadsheet for British Library Newspapers Case Study – Burney Digital Newspapers

Output Name: Output – Life2 –Spreadsheet for British Library Newspapers Case Study – Burney Digital Newspapers

Title: Spreadsheet for British Library Newspapers Case Study – Burney Digital Newspapers
Number of pages or page numbers: 4 tabs

Date Released:27 November 2008

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/9061/7/9061_Burney_Collection_Spreadsheet.xls

Summary of contents:This spreadsheet contains the exact costings for the SHERPA Leap Case Study.  The  Spreadsheet has 4 tabs

Tab1 – Introduction

Tab2 – Life Cycle Processes and Costs

Tab3 – Acoronyms and staff costs

Tab4  – Summary

Additional information:    Useful spreadsheet containing costings

Output – Life2 – Spreadsheet for SHERPA Leap Case Study

Output Name: Output – Life2 – Spreadsheet for SHERPA Leap Case Study

Title: Spreadsheet for SHERPA Leap Case Study
Number of pages or page numbers: 4 tabs

Date Released:27 November 2008

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/9032/3/9032.xls

Summary of contents:This spreadsheet contains the exact costings for the SHERPA Leap Case Study.  The  Spreadsheet has 4 tabs

Tab1 – Introduction

Tab2 – Life Cycle Processes and Costs

Tab3 – Acoronyms and staff costs

Tab4  – Summary

Additional information:    Useful spreadsheet containing costings.

Output – Life2 – Spreadsheet for SHERPA DP Case Study

Output Name: Output – Life2 – Spreadsheet for SHERPA DP Case Study

Title: Spreadsheet for SHERPA DP Case Study
Number of pages or page numbers: 4 tabs

Date Released:27 November 2008

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/9062/3/9062.xls

Summary of contents:This spreadsheet contains the exact costings for the SHERPA DP Case Study.  The  Spreadsheet has 4 tabs

Tab1 – Introduction

Tab2 – Life Cycle Processes and Costs

Tab3 – Acoronyms and staff costs

Tab4  – Summary

Additional information:    Useful spreadsheet containing costings.
Comments:

Output – Life2 – Final Report – Section 5 (British Library Newspapers Case Study)

Output Name: Output – Life2 – Final Report – Section 5

Title: British Library Newspapers Case Study
Number of pages or page numbers: pages 75-99

Date Released: 22/08/08

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

Summary of contents: Interesting output looking at the issues of legal deposit for newspapers, comparing analogue to digital collections.  Looks at the Burney Collection (static collection) and legal deposit of newspapers (dynamic).  Talks about ingest issues from Microfilm (page 87).  It carries out a comparison of the process, including differences in preserving digital vs analogue collections.  It’s conclusion on page 99 is relevant:

The aim of this Case Study was to see whether the lifecycle cost of analogue objects could be
identified and mapped against that of digital collections and this has been done. It was not a
Case Study to determine which method is cheaper or more expensive, although a by-product
of the research is that it is possible to see the results of the costs side by side.
The only clarification that the LIFE team think is important to make is that the creation cost
for digital material has had a major impact on the total lifecycle cost of a digital entity. For
analogue materials, because of the legal deposit situation, no creation costs are counted, but
the team knows that there are of course creation costs incurred in other areas outside the
institutional responsibility outlined here.
So for final costing purposes, the team feels that the most realistic comparison would be the
digital object cost minus creation cost versus the equivalent analogue object cost

A comparison of the costs:

Digital = £3.60

Analogue = £4.60

Per item.

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

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

Title: Final Report – INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY CASE STUDIES (Section4)
Section:4

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.

SHERPA-LEAP Case Study

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
object.
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
model.

Additonal information:

Comments:

Output – LIFE2 – Final Report – Executive Summary page 1

Output Name: Output – Life2 – Final Report

Title: The LIFE2 Final Project Report
Number of pages or page numbers: 129 pages

Date Released:22/08/08

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

Summary of contents:

The second phase of the LIFE Project, LIFE2, has refined the LIFE Model adding three new
exemplar Case Studies to further build upon LIFE1. LIFE2 is project between UCL (University College London) and The British Library (BL), supported by the LIBER Access and Preservation Divisions.
The LIFE approach has been validated by a full independent economic review and has
successfully produced an updated lifecycle costing model (LIFE Model v2) and digital
preservation costing model (GPM v1.1). The LIFE Model has been tested with three further
Case Studies including institutional repositories (SHERPA-LEAP), digital preservation
services (SHERPA DP) and a comparison of analogue and digital collections (British Library
Newspapers). These Case Studies were useful for scenario building and have fed back into
both the LIFE Model and the LIFE Methodology.
The experiences of implementing the Case Studies indicated that enhancements made to the
LIFE Methodology, Model and associated tools have simplified the costing process. Mapping
a specific lifecycle to the LIFE Model isn’t always a straightforward process. The revised and
more detailed Model has reduced ambiguity. The costing templates, which were refined
throughout the process of developing the Case Studies, ensure clear articulation of both
working and cost figures, and facilitate comparative analysis between different lifecycles.
The LIFE work has been successfully disseminated throughout the digital preservation and
HE communities. Early adopters of the work include the Royal Danish Library, State
Archives and the State and University Library, Denmark as well as the LIFE2 Project partners.
Furthermore, interest in the LIFE work has not been limited to these sectors, with interest in
LIFE expressed by local government, records offices, and private industry. LIFE has also
provided input into the LC-JISC Blue Ribbon Task Force on the Economic Sustainability of
Digital Preservation.
Moving forward our ability to cost the digital preservation lifecycle will require further
investment in costing tools and models. Developments in estimative models will be needed to
support planning activities, both at a collection management level and at a later preservation
planning level once a collection has been acquired. In order to support these developments a
greater volume of raw cost data will be required to inform and test new cost models. This
volume of data cannot be supported via the Case Study approach, and the LIFE team would
suggest that a software tool would provide the volume of costing data necessary to provide a
truly accurate predictive model.

Comments: This is a very detailed report and have included a brief summary for those who need to know the essence of the report.