Knowledge: Costs of stewardship

Citationsort descending Purpose Method Study Type
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
Bergin, M. Banach (2013).  Sabbatical Report: Summary of Survey Results on Digital Preservation Practices at 148 Institutions. Investigate how digital preservation programs were implemented in institutions with established programs Conducted an online survey and follow-up interviews with 12 librarians and archivists from various institutions. The survey received 148 responses [from libraries and archives]. 100 people finished the survey. "...I received responses from all types of institutions including national libraries, state libraries, academic libraries, public libraries, church and corporate archives, national parks archives, historical societies, research data centers, and presidential libraries. Roughly a third of the respondents were from large academic institutions with more than 20,000 students, another third were from smaller academic institutions with less than 20,000 students, and the remaining third were from non-academic institutions." Measurement, Wider
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
Kejser, U. Bøgvad, Johansen K. Hougaard E., Thirifays A., Nielsen A. Bo, Wang D., Strodl S., et al. (2014).  4C Project: Evaluation of Cost Models and Needs & Gaps Analysis. 4C Project: Analyzed research related to the economics of digital curation and cost and benefit modelling; investigated how well current models and tools meet stakeholders’ needs for calculating and comparing financial information; pointed out gaps to be bridged to increase the uptake of cost & benefit modelling and practices that will enable costing and comparison of the costs of alternative scenarios Evaluated and compared ten current and emerging cost and benefit models; performed consultations (in the form of a questionnaire) with 4C project stakeholders; 296 contacts were made and 164 responded (55% response rate) Measurement, 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
Piwowar, H. A., Vision T. J., & Whitlock M. C. (2011).  Data archiving is a good investment. Nature. 473(7347), 285. Estimated the cost of archiving data using Dryad; estimated reuse of data Cost: method not given; Reuse: searched the full text of articles in PubMed Central for mention of datasets in the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database Measurement, 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
Berman, F., Lavoie B., Ayris P., G. Choudhury S., Cohen E., Courant P. N., et al. (2008).  Sustaining the Digital Investment: Issues and Challenges of Economically Sustainable Digital Preservation. 72. "To sample and understand best and current practices for digital preservation and access, and to begin to synthesize major themes and identify systemic challenges." Focused on two questions: How much does it cost? and Who should pay? Conducted a literature review and invited 16 speakers "representing a variety of domains and areas of expertise" to address five questions: 1) What is the nature of the materials being preserved; 2) Who are the stakeholders for these materials?; 3) What is the "value proposition" for this preservation effort?; 4) What are the key features of long-term preservation for these materials?; 5) What are the "economic aspects" of digital preservation? Measurement, Targeted
Kaur, K., Darby R., Herterich P., Schmitt K., Schrimpf S., Tjalsma H., et al. (2013).  Report on Testing of Cost Models and Further Analysis of Cost Parameters. Test existing cost models and cost/benefit analyses for digital preservation against real-world examples; analyzed cost models in relation to ISO 16363 to identify gap areas not covered by the models Tested the cost models with data that had already been collected (e.g., as part of the development of the DANS cost model) Measurement, Targeted
Russell, K., & Weinberger E. (2000).  Cost elements of digital preservation. "Provides an introduction and overview of some of the general issues associated with the costs of digital preservation and...a detailed breakdown of specific cost elements" Metrics, Targeted
Subscribe to Knowledge: Costs of stewardship