joint session rda/wds ig cost recovery models ig domain repositories rda p6, paris, 23-09-2015
Post on 02-Jan-2016
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
JOINT SESSIONRDA/WDS IG Cost Recovery Models
IG Domain RepositoriesRDA P6, Paris, 23-09-2015
2
15.30 - 16.00 presentation of survey results (20 min) and questions (10 min)
16.00 - 16.40 break-out groups: SWOT analysis of the different funding models
16.40 - 17.00 plenary wrap-up
Session programme
3
Remit from the case statement:
A contribution to strategic thinking on cost recovery by conducting research to understand current and possible cost recovery strategies for data centres
Report providing conclusions and recommendations about the appropriateness of different cost recovery models to different situations and the potential of data publication initiatives fitting into a cost recovery strategy
The IG Cost Recovery objectives and deliverable
4
Why is this work important?
Long-term sustainability of data repositories is under threat in US and Europe “Stakeholder and data volumes are growing rapidly and funding not following.”
Many repositories are seeking alternative models for cost recovery
They would like to know about each other’s efforts
Motivation of the IG Cost Recovery
5What have we done?
Survey among digital repositories:
22 repositories interviewed done by volunteers over phone/Skype Each interview took at least 1 hour, following a script
6Quantitative Survey Results
7Quantitative Survey Results
8Quantitative Survey Results
9Quantitative survey results
Research Project Funder
Research Performing
Organisation
Researcher / PI / Project
1. Structural (central contract)2. Hosting Support (indirect or direct support through institutional hosting)3. Annual Contract (from depositing institution)4. Data Deposit Fee (may be paid by researcher, RPO or publisher; may originate with funder)5. Access Charge (for the data or for value-adding services)6. R&D Projects (to develop infrastructure or value-adding services)7. Private Contracting (services to parties other than core funder)
Data Centre / Archive
(Structural) Infrastructure
Funder
Private Contracting
11Income streams in absolute numbers of repositories
12Term of funding for the main income stream (in %)
13Quantitative Survey Results
14
Exploring alternative revenue streams
yes no maybe0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
15
Compatibility with the Open Access principle
16Funding options under consideration
Sponsorships Contracts for specific services offered (hosting,
archiving, curation) Expanding the number of affiliated institutions Deposit fees Funders making more money available (given priority
for data) Specific services for the commercial sector
(mentioned by one) More services for national memory institutes
17
Typology of funding models
Largely structurally funded Reliant on data access charges Exploring data deposit fees Substantial diversification Propped up by project funding Supported by host institution
18
Finalising the draft survey report on the basis of the input at RDA P6
Circulating the draft survey report among key stakeholders to get further input
Presenting the final conclusions and recommendations at RDA P7
Next steps
19
Four broad funding models:1. Largely structurally funded (including support by the host
institution)
2. Reliant on data access charges
3. Exploring data deposit fees
4. Substantial diversification (including project funding)
What are the plans, hopes and fears for the future (SWOT) if we look as these different funding models?
Breakout groups: SWOT analysis
20
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
1
21
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
2
22
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
3
23
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
4
top related