Upload
guest128c9a
View
1.118
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This presentation describes LIFE, a tool for evaluating and predicting the costs of managing a digital object over its full lifecycle. It was given as part of module 2 of a 5-module course on digital preservation tools for repository managers, presented by the JISC KeepIt project. For more on this and other presentations in this course look for the tag 'KeepIt course' in the project blog http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/keepit/
Citation preview
LIF
E3 LIFE3: Predicting Long Term
Preservation Costs
Brian Hole
LIFE3 Project Manager
The British Library
KeepIt training course 05/02/10
LIF
E3
2
Some Typical Questions first
A finite amount of funding is available for digitisation, ingest and preservation of a collection. How many items should be digitised without overspending?
A digital collection is due to be ingested into an organisation’s digital repository. Migration to a new file format offering superior compression and savings in storage cost is a possibility, but the operation itself will also have a cost. Should the organisation migrate the collection?
An organisation is considering outsourcing the storage, preservation and access of a digital collection. The service provider gives a quote. Will outsourcing save the organisation money?
A digitisation project within an organisation is not following best practice. What will be the cost of picking up the pieces in 5 years time?
LIF
E3
3
LIFE projects overview
Collaboration between University College London (UCL), the British Library (BL) and HATII at the University of Glasgow
Co-funded by Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) and the Research Information Network (RIN)
The LIFE Project: 1 year project Completed in April 2006
The LIFE2 Project: 1.5 year project Completed August 2008
The LIFE3 Project: 1 year project Began August 2009
LIFE = Life cycle Information For
E-literature
LIF
E3
4
Overview of the LIFE Projects so far
The LIFE Project: Aim: to explore a lifecycle approach to costing the preservation of
digital materials The Project developed:
A generic model of the digital preservation lifecycle A methodology for assessing lifecycle costs against this model 3 case studies, examining and costing a range of digital
lifecycles
The LIFE2 Project: Aim: to evaluate, refine and further develop the techniques
developed in phase one of LIFE Key elements:
Review by external economics expert Revision of the lifecycle model and costing methodology 3 new lifecycle case studies
LIF
E3
5
LIFE3: Estimating preservation costs
The LIFE3 Project: Aim: To develop the ability to estimate preservation costs across the
digital lifecycle The Project is developing:
A series of costing models for each stage and element of the digital lifecycle
An easy to use costing tool Support to enable easy input of data Integration to facilitate use of the results
Organisational Profile
Predicted Lifecycle
Cost
CostEstimation
Tool
Context
Content Profile
LIF
E3
6
LIFE3 costing tool inputs
Organisational Profile
Context
Content Profile
Content Profile Type of Content File format Complexity Volume
Organisational Profile Existing infrastructure Preservation policy Legal constraints
Context Inflation Hardware costs and trends Staff costs
LIF
E3
7
LIFE3 costing tool outputs – estimated costs
Reference Linking
Disposal
•Check-in
InspectionObtaining
BackupHoldingsUpdate
Ordering & Invoicing
....
User Support
RefreshmentDepositIPR &
Licensing....
Access Control
Storage Provision
MetadataSubmission Agreement
....
Access Provision
Repository Admin
Quality Assurance
Selection....
Life
cy
cle
Ele
me
nts
Access
Re-ingest
Preservation Action
Preservation Planning
Preservation Watch
Content Preservation
Bit-stream Preservation
IngestAcquisitionCreation
or Purchase
Life
cy
cle
S
tag
e
LIF
E3
8
Integration
• DROID• Planets Content Profile• FITS
• DRAMBORA• Plato • JISC Framework
CostEstimation
Tool
• DRAMBORA• Planets Preservation Policy• Data Audit Framework
•Context
LIF
E3
9
Template approach
Detailed inputs, specific outputs
Templates for typical content and organisational profiles
Auto completion of specific inputs
Lower barrier of access
Custom profiles
Example: Content Profile:
Digitised books Large collection (1000000 pages)
LIF
E3
10
Current status and key milestones
Five months into the project: First iteration of Life models 80% completed Additional data has been collected from digitisation projects A survey is being conducted on storage costs Specification and design of costing tool in progress
Key milestones: Feb 2010 – first iteration models for each lifecycle stage June 2010 – tool development and integration complete August 2010 – testing and revision of tool September 2010 – project wrap up
LIF
E3
11
Strategic Issues
Challenging context Hybrid world, non-digital not dying, funding not increasing Greater variety of content Non-digital usage increasing, security, wear and tear Scale
Allocation of resource: ratio of digital to non-digital spending Digital preservation : Non-digital preservation
Replacing microfilm surrogacy with digital: digital as a preservation medium
Risk Cost
Supporting the lifecycle approach Evidence of efficiencies over the medium to long term
LIF
E3
12
Preservation Planning
Collection management decision making Whether to purchase/acquire/digitise?
Selecting an appropriate preservation solution Plato Cost – Risk – Value Preservation requirements
Budgeting for expected preservation costs
LIF
E3
13
Related work
LIFE-SHARE Project Focus on digitisation Activity costing and analysis Skills audit Supporting a preservation and lifecycle approach to digitisation
Danish lifecycle costing Focus on format types, migration
KRDS2
LIF
E3
14
Key challenges, and request for help
Content complexity Categorisation of content type / complexity and impact on effort
required to preserve
Data, activity costing Capturing / contributing costing data
Trialling the models, feedback
More information:www.life.ac.uk
LIF
E3
15
Exercise
Excel model The Content Profile Refining the calculations
Feedback Do you feel that this approach is sound? Have we included all relevant factors? Is the model suitable for the kind of content your repository deals
with? Are we making correct assumptions, and is it clear what these are? How could we improve it?