Proving its worth... British Library Bill Hubbard 21 January 2008.

Proving its worth . . .

British Library

Bill Hubbard21 January 2008

Leading questions . . .

How much money will it save?• The point of this is to allow us to cancel journals,

right?

Where will the money come from?• The money will have to come from library budgets . . .

When will the repository break even?

or even . . .

How much money will it make?

No summary answers . . .

Reasonable questions about cost, value-for-money, sources of money

Reasonable answers about open access, added-value and benefits

Our job to bring the two perspectives together

Let us try a traditional Cost-Benefit analysis . . .

Cost - Benefit analysis

Cost Benefit

Cost - Benefit analysis

CostSoftware

Server

FTE staffing

Distributed tech maintenance

Cultural change

New staff

Role redefinition

Service development

Permanent budget line

Benefitopen access

information management

citation rise

Costs are material, benefits strategic

Repositories are a strategic investment

Repositories have to be gauged on strategic grounds

Are there any comparisons?

Comparisons

Any university information system• Website• Portal• Timetabling system• Finance system• Personnel database• Library catalogue• e-learning environment• email

Proving the worth of email . . .

Similarities - a system already in place • postal service, telephones - secretaries, services,

hierarchies

Benefits echoed• personalised communication - peer-to-peer direct

contact - desktop access

Cultural change echoes• roles redefined

Adoption profile• discipline specific - slow-build to tidal wave

and in passing . . .

email has not replaced postal service• although monolithic commercial concerns are strained• embedded monopoly position • agile operators move into vacuum

Social mores insist on some postal communication for some purposes

Similar ideas of “official” communication

New generations may have other ideas

Proving the worth of email . . .

Can a similar calculation be made?

So, alternatively . . .

What do we loose if we don’t develop a repository service?

Who will be disadvantaged if we stop repository development?

How much will it cost if we don’t have a repository in the future?

What is the current situation costing us right now?

Strategic value

Show relevance to stakeholder needs

Show relevance to stakeholder aspirations

Show an account for stakeholder concerns

Identify any short-term returns

Describe long-term benefits, added value

Quantify costs without undercutting true investment

Create practical metrics to see if investment is on course• but measure the right thing!

Stakeholder needs and aspirations

Information management

Research management

Assessment and RAE

Institutional profile

Personal profiles

Marketing and publicity

Competitor parity

Show how repository addresses these in local and national context

Account for stakeholder concerns

IPR - institutional and academic

Academics’ freedom to publish

Library roles under redefinition

Short-term returns

Funding agency requirements

Citation improvements• OA citations rise• but rise is relative between academics, departments,

institutions, so need to keep up with the Joneses

Long-term benefits, added value

Information management

Research management

Assessment and RAE

Institutional profile

Personal profiles

Marketing and publicity

Quantify costs

Staff

Equipment

Maintenance

Content acquisition

Support

Advocacy

Distributing the cost - embedding the process

Practical metrics

Defining your own metrics for success• These will be locally sensitive• Collection policies• Collection targets - be practical• By discipline? - by research income? - by

prominence?

Private metrics for failure• for the warning bells to sound for you first!

Some figures for context

4000 articles per year

200 working days

20 articles a day

target for collection?

and preprints, conference papers, book chapters, reports, data-sets . . .

Proving its worth . . .

Not through a balance sheet

Not through coarse measures of size

Not as replacement for anything

As strategic investment that improves institution’s core work

As response to contemporary developments in HE and research

As beneficial for research management and research outputs

Bill Hubbard

[email protected]