In This Section
4C Partners
Keeping Research Data Safe (KRDS)
| Property | Description |
| ID | 4 |
| Creator and Funding | The KRDS Project is funded by Jisc and conducted by a partnership of the following institutions: Charles Beagrie Ltd, OCLC research, the UK Data Archive, the Archaeology Data Service, the University of London Computer Centre, and the Universities of Cambridge, King's College London, Oxford and Southampton. |
| Status | The KRDS project ended in 2010, though there has been some follow-up activity. The latest documentation dates from July 2011. |
| Purpose | Support for efficient digital repositories and data curation. |
| Information assets | Research data. |
| Activities | Production, Pre-Ingest (pre-archive phase), Ingest, Data Management, Archival Storage, Preservation Planning, Administration, Access (archive phase). |
| Resources | Capital costs (equipment costs, travel, consumables, estate costs), labour costs, indirect costs, outsourcing. |
| Time | Past, Present, Future - medium to long term |
| Variables | Collection levels, preservation aims, number of depositors, number, mode and frequency of deposits, number, complexity and type of file formats. |
| Type of tool | Analysis. |
| Availability of tools | Tools, documentation, user guide etc. is available for download at: http://www.beagrie.com/krds.php |
| References | Charles Beagrie Limited, User guide for keeping research data safe. Assessing costs/benefits of research data management, preservation and re-use, Version 2.0. Copyright HEFCE 2010 and 2011: http://www.beagrie.com/KeepingResearchDataSafe_UserGuide_v2.pdf Beagrie, N. and Pink, C., 2012. Benefits from Research Data Management in Universities for Industry and Not-for-Profit Research Partners. Charles Beagrie Ltd and University of Bath. http://opus.bath.ac.uk/32509/ Beagrie, N., Chruszcz, J. and Lavoie, B. Keeping Research Data Safe. A Cost Model and Guidance for UK Universities, Copyright HEFCE 2008, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/keepingresearchdatasafe0408.pdf Beagrie, N., B. Lavoie, and M. Woollard, Keeping Research Data Safe 2, Final Report, Charles Beagrie Ltd., 2010, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/reports/2010/keepingresearchdatasafe2.pdf Beagrie, KRDS/I2S2 Digital Preservation Benefit Analysis Tools Project, http://beagrie.com/krds-i2s2.php |
The KRDS models aims to give understanding of long-term preservation costs for research data and support cost benefit-analyses for justifying and sustaining major investments in digital repositories and curation. It is developed in the context of universities but is widely applicable.
The KRDS cost model is activity based and builds on OAIS terminology. It divides the digital curation life-cycle into phases consisting of activities and sub activities. Each of which represents a cost variable. The model is a framework and does not include a cost predicting tool.
The KRDS Benefits Analysis Toolkit includes the ‘KRDS Benefits Framework’ and the ‘Value Chain and Benefits Impact Tools’. Each tool consists of a more detailed guide and worksheets. The combined Toolkit provides a very flexible set of tools, worksheets, and lists of examples of generic benefits and potential metrics.
The Benefits Framework Tool is for identifying, assessing, and communicating the benefits from investing resources in the curation and long-term preservation of research data. The benefits in this tool are divided into three dimensions which are all further divided into two categories. The first dimension consists of direct and indirect benefits; the second one is divided into near-term and long-term benefits while the third one includes internal and external benefits13.
The more advanced Value Chain and Benefits Impact Analysis Tool is designed to be used for longer-term and intensive activities such as evaluation and strategic planning. The impact component of the tool helps identify potential quantitative metrics or qualitative indicators for the value of the benefits identified.
The activity model concepts cover all aspects of the lifecycle in the model framework but users need to develop their own calculations based on guidance in the user guide. This is not a bad thing as most organisations will want the model to reflect their own environment but some default data could be useful to avoid users having to develop their own formulas entirely from scratch.
