|
Ayris, P., Wheatley P., Aitken B., Hole B., McCann P., Peach C., et al.
(2010). The LIFE3 Project: Bringing digital preservation to LIFE.
|
Investigated the development of a life cycle-based cost model for digital preservation |
Performed comprehensive review of life cycle models and digital preservation; broke a digital object’s lifecycle into six main lifecycle stages and identified the costs of elements in these stages over a specified time; performed case studies to identify costs for each stage of the life cycle; LIFE2 added cases studies for two institutional repositories and an analog collection; LIFE3 included a survey of digital preservation repositories and additional case studies |
Measurement, Metrics, Targeted |
|
Ayris, P., Wheatley P., Davies R., Shenton H., Miao R., & McLeod R.
(2008). The LIFE2 Final Project Report.
|
Investigated the development of a life cycle-based cost model for digital preservation |
Performed comprehensive review of life cycle models and digital preservation; broke a digital object’s lifecycle into six main lifecycle stages and identified the costs of elements in these stages over a specified time; performed case studies to identify costs for each stage of the life cycle; LIFE2 added cases studies for two institutional repositories and an analog collection; LIFE3 included a survey of digital preservation repositories and additional case studies |
Measurement, Metrics, Targeted |
|
Beagrie, N., Chruszcz J., & Lavoie B.
(2008). Keeping Research Data Safe: A Cost Model and Guidance for UK Universities.
|
Investigated the medium to long term costs to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) of the preservation of research data and developed guidance on these issues, including a framework for determining costs |
Mapped the OAIS reference model against the LIFE cost model and NASA’s Cost Estimation Toolkit; evaluated transferable practice and relative strengths and weaknesses for each; aligned the resulting model with the TRAC model; researched literature on preservation costs and reports and documentation from UK data services and funders; conducted 12 interviews to supplement and validate researched information; conducted three case studies to validate the developed methodology and illustrate the variety of costs and community and service requirements for research data. |
Measurement, Metrics, Targeted |
|
Beagrie, N., Lavoie B., & Woollard M.
(2010). Keeping Research Data Safe 2.
|
Continued the work of Beagrie et al. 2008 to develop a cost model for digital preservation |
Updated the previous literature review; conducted a cost survey; developed a taxonomy of the benefits of digital preservation; analyzed national and disciplinary digital archives that have existing historic cost information for preservation of digital research data collections and interacted with additional digital archives and research universities to determine the validity of developed cost model and how the cost model might be used |
Measurement, Metrics, Targeted |
|
Berman, F., Lavoie B., Ayris P., G. Choudhury S., Cohen E., Courant P., et al.
(2010). Sustainable Economics for a Digital Planet: Ensuring Long-Term Access to Digital Information.
110. |
Developed an economic framework for analyzing digital preservation as an economic problem. Employed the framework to analyze the "economic conditions and implications intrinsic to four key digital preservation contexts: scholarly discourse, research data, collectively produced Web content, and commercially owned cultural content." |
Drew on findings reported in the interim Blue Ribbon Task Force report: Sustaining the Digital Investment: Issues and Challenges of Economically Sustainable Digital Preservation |
Metrics, Targeted |
|
Fry, J., Lockyer S.., Oppenheim C.., Houghton J.W.., & Rasmussen B..
(2008). Identifying benefits arising from the curation and open sharing of research data produced within UK Higher Education and research institutes: exploring costs and benefits.
|
Investigated the benefits of the curation and open sharing of research data and the development of a methodology and model for estimating the benefits of data curation and sharing in UK higher education |
Performed a literature review to provide illustrative examples of reuse and the views of stakeholders in various disciplines towards data curation and sharing; conducted two case studies to identify and illustrate benefits and costs in these areas |
Measurement, Metrics, Wider |
|
Hendley, T.
(1998). Comparison of Methods & Costs of Digital Preservation.
|
Developed a matrix of data types and categories of digital resources, a decision model to assess these categories and determine the most appropriate preservation strategy, and a cost model for comparing costs of preferred preservation methods |
Conducted an extensive review of literature and work to develop cost models; visited a number of digital libraries and data centres |
Metrics, Targeted |
|
Kejser, U. Bøgvad, Nielsen A. Bo, & Thirifays A.
(2011). Cost Model for Digital Preservation: Cost of Digital Migration.
International Journal of Digital Curation. 6(1), |
Investigated the development of a framework for costing digital preservation, including a methodology with sufficient detail to outline required resources, a set of equations to transform the resources into cost data, and a description of the accounting principles applied
|
Performed a literature review; used the OAIS reference model to structure the functional breakdown of costs, initially for preservation planning and migration; examined two case studies dealing with migrations of data |
Measurement, Metrics, Targeted |
|
McLeod, R., Wheatley P., Ayris P., & Girling H.
(2006). The LIFE Project: Bringing digital preservation to LIFE - A summary from the LIFE project Report Produced for the LIFE conference 20 April 2006.
|
Investigated the development of a life cycle-based cost model for digital preservation |
Performed comprehensive review of life cycle models and digital preservation; broke a digital object’s lifecycle into six main lifecycle stages and identified the costs of elements in these stages over a specified time; performed case studies to identify costs for each stage of the life cycle; LIFE2 added cases studies for two institutional repositories and an analog collection; LIFE3 included a survey of digital preservation repositories and additional case studies |
Measurement, Metrics, Targeted |
|
Science and Technology Council
(2007). The Digital Dilemma: Strategic Issues in Archiving and Accessing Digital Motion Picture Materials.
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. |
Investigated size of picture and sound elements created during production and post production for two motion pictures in 2006 or 2007 |
Conducted case studies where motion picture studios provided information about the amounts of data for a pre-determined list of materials |
Measurement, Metrics, Targeted |
