Using the LIFE Costing Model Case studies from

Using the LIFE Costing Model Case studies from DK Anders Bo Nielsen, The Danish National Archives Ulla Bøgvad Kejser, The Royal Library, Denmark

LIFE Costing Model - Denmark • LIFE - DK Project – Aim - Estimate and compare lifecycle costs of preservation of digital materials held by Danish cultural heritage institutions – Partners - The National Archives - The Royal Library - The State and University Library – Timeline - October 2008 – December 2009 – Funding - The Danish Ministry of Culture (£ 75. 000)

Evaluation of the LIFE Costing Model • Pros – already there – Usable for estimating the lifecycle costs of digital (and analogue) materials – The elements/subelements provide a comprehensive checklist of costs – Independent of preservation strategy (transformation or emulation) – Tested on real data sets • Required improvements – Consistency of model - Use OAIS terminology to ease understanding, cooperation and widespread use - Breakdown in more generic functional entities to avoid bias towards library materials – Metadata assigned to the functions they relate to (not a stage in itself) – Include all costs in one model (lifecycle and non lifecycle) - Allow for full economic costs to be modelled, including costs of system development – More test on real data needed

LIFE Costing Model - DK Production Acquisition Ingest Archival Storage Preservation Planning Access Audit Selection Ingest Administration Storage Administration Preservation Planning Access Administration Selection Submission Agreement Quality Assurance Storage Provision Preservation Watch Access Provision IPR and licencing Metadata Receive Data Preservation Access Control Retrieval and reshelving Ordering and invoicing Transfer Refreshment Re-ingest User Support Capture Submission Error Checking Quality Assurance Check-in Replication Metadata Provide Data Lifecycle system management Planning, certification) General administation and facilities; economic adjustments (overhead)

Case study 1: Costs of transformation (format migration) • Set up – Transforming from MS Word (creation format) to TIFF 6. 0 (preservation format) – Amount of pages: 7. 555 in app. 1. 500 documents, produced/recieved by 10 persons for about 6 months – Transforming using a purchased TIFF-printer driver and an inhouse developed system to control the transformation – Quality control using automatic system control for some controls and samples for other controls

The generic preservation model (GPM) Cost = t * TEW + (t / ULE + PON) * (CRS + UME + PPA + QA)

Results of using the GPM

Case study 2: Costs of digital versus film preservation • Set up – Preservation copying of degrading historic nitrate and acetate negatives • Preservation strategies – Preservation as master files in KBDK’s digital repository – Output on film and preserved in KB’s traditional storage facility Preservation copy of decaying nitrate negative (ca. 1950)

Costs in € for 20, 000 preservation copies (13 TB) year 1 LIFE Costing Model 20, 000 copies (13 TB) TIFF Uncompressed 105 mm film Production (Digitisation) 134, 886 Production (Film output) 0 180, 201 Acquisition 1, 889 Ingest 2, 283 1, 194 35, 910 326 922 0 175, 890 318, 496 Archival Storage Preservation Planning Total

Operating costs (€)

Accumulated costs (€) over 5 years

Concluding remarks • • Promising model Need to include full economic cost Need consistency with OAIS Quality assessment – Map LIFE Costing Model to certification/audit initiatives - Catalogue of Criteria for Trusted Digital Repositories (Nestor) - Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist (TRAC) - Digital Repository Audit Method Based on Risk Assessment (DRAMBORA)

Acknowledgements • LIFE 2 project team • Colleagues at the Danish National Archives, State and University Library and the Royal Library • Contact information – Anders Bo Nielsen, The National Archives abn@ra. sa. dk – Ulla Bøgvad Kejser, The Royal Library ubk@kb. dk