1. RDA/WDS IG Cost Recovery Models

2. 2  Welcome and short outline of the goals and activities of the IG  Presentation of the preliminary results of the joint Knowledge Exchange/Science Europe survey of the European funding landscape for research data management, by Irina Kupiainen, chair of the Knowledge Exchange Research Data Expert Group  Presentation of the first results of the cost recovery survey  Discussion and definition of next steps Agenda

3. 3  Overall motivation:  Long-term sustainability of data repositories is under threat in US and Europe (quotes)  Many repositories are seeking alternative models for cost recovery  They would like to know about each other’s efforts  Goal of this IG:  Interview series of repositories  Collect & summarize findings  Write report and share with repositories  Plan next steps.  Interviews:  23 Repositories interviewed  Done by volunteers over phone/Skype  Each interview took appr 1 hour, following script. Motivation and Goals of this IG << Today

4. 4 Preliminary Survey Results

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7

8. 8

9. 9

10. 10 Multiple sources of funding:  The (group of) institutes they belong to: 60 – 65 % of the repositories  Government Funds and other Research Funders: 50 % of the repositories  Specific project grants: 50 % of the repositories  Deposit fees: 25 % of the repositories  Annual contracts, annual member fees: 25 % Is the current stream sufficient for the future?  60 % yes, 30 % no, 10 % maybe. Preliminary Survey Results

11. 11 Term of funding currently for the main income stream:  annual: 20 %  3 yr secure: 25 %  5 yr secure: 35 %  Ongoing: 10 %  Term of project: 10 %  Mix: 30 % (contains double counts between the categories) Exploring alternatives?  65 % Yes  25 % No  10 % a little Preliminary Survey Results

12. 12 Funding 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

13. 13 Some Trends Wrt Future of Funding:  There is friction between the perpetuity objectives of digital preservation and the timebound funding of repositories: “The cost of long term preservation is now only covered for the first five years of preservation. More data and thus higher costs are expected in the near future. Demands and requirements will grow. “  Where funding is now sufficient, people are concerned how to accommodate the ever increasing data deluge and the costs involved: “Stakeholder and data volumes are growing rapidly and funding not following.”  The priority on data sharing now provides a positive atmosphere for more funding: “there is clearly a growth in the market to provide curation and repository services to sponsors.”  However, these factors are fashion-prone and may come to an end: “

14. 14 Some Trends Wrt Future Models of Funding:  One issue is finding the time (under current contract obligations) to explore new funding models: “We are not allowed to do the analysis of the real business model cost, this is not a contracted deliverable! Don't have the funding to be able to investigate feasible business models.”  Another issue is the lack of insight into a reasonable fee structure/amount: “Trying to figure out the right cost for a Terabyte of data, or 7 hours of curation”  And a further issue is the conflict between cost recovery and a business model: “Possibility of private contracting of curation service, but this is more good citizenship rather than genuinely income generating - i.e. will not charge much more than real cost.”