Archiving: Models for the Business of Electronic Resources (AMBER)

1. Archiving: Models for the Business of Electronic Resources (AMBER) Anne Foster, EPS Ltd. anne@epsltd.com

2. Objectives • To describe a model of a business model • Model 0 and other models of archives • To show some benchmark costs as a basis for understanding an archive model • To assess two archive models – distributed and central

3. A model of a business model • Business objective – why are we doing this • Financial perspective • Customer/client perspective • Infrastructure perspective • Organisational learning perspective

4. Corporate Objective, e.g. improve shareholder value Increase value to customers Improve cost structure Improve use of assets • rRevenue from new sources Build the Franchise • cCustomer profitability • oOperating costs per unit produced • UUnits of content shared by different units Build the Franchise through innovation Achieve operational excellence through operations and logistics process Increase customer value through customer management processes • SSuccessful on-time launches • cCustomer acquisition, retention and satisfaction • OOn-time delivery of product Operational Excellence Product Leadership Customer Intimacy • sShare price • rReturn on capital employed Financial Perspective Revenue Growth Strategy Productivity Strategy • cCustomer acquisition, retention and satisfaction Customer Perspective Customer value proposition Become a good corporate citizen through regulatory and environmental processes Internal Process Perspective Technology to support innovation, customer management, training, plan Learning & growth Perspective Corporate culture Employee competencies Based on Kaplan & Norton, HBR, Sept/Oct. 2000

5. Model 0 –Serendipity- why?

6. Model 0 – Serendipity– for whom? For Francesco Datini ( 1342-1410) A prototype of the multinational business man. Who founded a business based on cloth manufacturing, luxury goods trading and cash management Whose motto was “For God and Profit”

7. Model 0 – Serendipity– what/how? • Financial and personal records • From 1385 to 1410 • Libro and libro segretto (dark archive) • Vellum • Leather satchels • Under the stairs

8. Purpose of an archive for e-journals is: • “Authenticate, preserve and make available electronic journals for an extended length of time” • OR “so libraries can easily and affordably create, preserve, and archive local electronic collections, own rather than lease electronic information, retain traditional custodial role of scholarly information and provide continuing and perpetual access to their local community”. & “Publishers can easily and affordably provide content…with minimal risk to their business model..platforms” • OR “ to consolidate electronic records onto a secure, internet accessible archive where they can be easily protected, authenticated, managed, searched and retrieved”

9. Criteria for an e-journal archive • Sustainability • Technology • Format • Costs • Intellectual property ownership • Interoperability • Standards • DOI,OAIS • Accessibility • Intellectual property ownership • Metadata • Persistence • Accountability – shared by stakeholders • Feasibility • Development costs, maintenance costs, technology

10. The U.S. NDIIPP Process • Stakeholder Meetings • Barriers and Opportunities • Actors and Roles MASTER PLAN • Scenario Planning • Credible Scenarios • Alternative NDIIPP Strategies • Collaborative Research • Research Agenda Models and Investment Strategy • Conceptual Framework • Preservation Infrastructure

11. Benchmark costs • NDIIPP Funding • Up to $175 million potentially available • $5 million (available now until expended) • $20 million (subject to advance Congressional approval) • $75 million (subject to $ for $ match from non-federal sources by March 31, 2003) • $75 million (private funds)

12. Benchmark costs • E-Archive Project – Universities of Utrecht, Delft and Maastricht • Metadata assignment, administration, q.c • Euro 20 per document • Technical infrastructure • Euro 9 per document • Annual costs for 5000 documents= Euro 145,000

13. Benchmark Costs impact of legal digital deposit on libraries • These costs are part of an EPS study for the British Library to establish costs for maintaining digital archives of UK publications only. • First scenario assumes a strategic target in 2005 of 60% all unique UK serials and 50% of born digital serials. • For Scenario two the percentages are 80% and 50% respectively.

14. Benchmark Costs – Creation of a digital archive for commercial exploitation • Development costs = 10% of gross revenue and 50% of profit • The management of digital content is expected to reduce production costs by 20%

15. Amber Model #1 – Central Archive base level • Objective – “Authenticate, preserve and make available electronic journals for an extended length of time” • Financial – • Not for profit, grant funded • Customer – • Institutions and individual researchers • Operational excellence, not product leadership or customer intimacy • Infrastructure • Owned and developed by Archive • Learning and Knowledge • Metadata creation and maintenance • Content management system development and maintenance • Customer support

16. LIKE Easier to negotiate licences Easier to monitor usage Can build trusted relationships WOULDCHANGE What if they sell it or find a value they didn’t?? Amber Model #1A –Central Archive – from owner.rights holder perspective

17. LIKE Security that everything that can be there is there Consistent search interface WOULD CHANGE No focus on regional or local needs, focus Amber Model #1B – Central Archive model from end-user perspective

18. Amber Model #2 – Distributed Archive base level • Objective – “Authenticate and make available electronic journals for an extended length of time, no matter where they are” • Financial – • Not for profit, grant funded, fee funded • Customer – • Institutions • Customer intimacy • Infrastructure • Owned and developed by Archive consortium members • Except search interface and customer authentication • Learning and Knowledge • Customer support

19. LIKE Do not need to change relationships with existing customers Can still respond to very local needs WOULDCHANGE Control over individual use very dependent on many institutions Amber Model #2A – Distributed Archive – from owner.rights holder perspective

20. Amber Model #2B – Distributed Archive model from end-user perspective • LIKE • Local responsiveness to specific needs • Potentially greater content available over multiple sites • WOULDCHANGE • Not as certain of quality of data based on the fact that storage is in many sites

21. Questions for the workshop • What is the archive for? When and how and for what purpose will this archive be put to use? • What are its financial objectives in light of the above? • Who are key stakeholders/customers? Owners, users, intermediaries, archive agents, consortia, governments • What type? Central or distributed? • What infrastructure needs to exist? • What people and organisation needs to exist • What trade-offs will you make for a central archive? Why? • What trade-offs will you make for a distributed archive? Why?