Business Cases

Making a Business Case | Capital Costs | Staff Costs | Institutional Benefits | Resource Bank

Making a Business Case

To make a case for an insitutional repository an institution must analyse the value it adds to their business, and subsequently articulate this value to the community it serves. The questions which need to be answered are:

• Who pays?
• What for?
• Why?
• How much?

Capital Costs

If most Repository software is available freely as Open Source, why should cost be a problem? It is not simply the case of installing the software, it is the human resources that are required around the repository are where the real costs are. If a repository is to be successful it must be considered as part of the institutions long term strategy, which therefore requires considerable investment in the short, medium and long term. Therefore it in both creating and maintaining an institutional repository financial, staffing and time resources will need to be invested.

[Figures/Notes on Capital Costs Pending]

Typical hardware costs

Informal evidence collected by the RSP indicates that the amount being spent on hardware for repositories varies greatly, ranging from virtually nothing for pilot services, through a few thousand pounds, up to top end of the scale where thousands and thousands of pounds are being invested in computing hardware for the repository.

* Cambridge noted that their figures were unlikley to be indicative of typical repository costs and suggested that a £20K set up should allow a repository to handle anything from 50,000-100,000 papers.

Staff Costs

The human level of resource needed for a repository is variable, although expeirences in the sector have demonstrated that a greater resourcing tends to result in a more rapid ingest of materials.

Start-up costs

• Advertising for and appointing a suitably qualified repository administrator
• Time needed with staff to choose the appropriate software
• Expertise of Technical Staff to install the software
• Time needed to administer it, make changes and amendments
• Developing repository policies and a over-arching strategy
• Establishing a steering group or advisory panel
• Training support staff, researchers and other end users
• Publicising the repository as well as full blown advocacy campaigns
• Investigating legal issues such as licenses, copyright etc

Ongoing demands

Certainly the task of promoting the benefits, while at the same time reassuring staff on their concerns, about using a repository is a complex, resource intensive task. It is not an area which can be ticked off a list as ever being entirely complete. It is also an aspect that may ebb and surge unexpectedly due to developments within the institution or across the scholarly world. However, the one constant is that there will always be some area of the repository equation with which staff will be required to engage; such as:

• Ongoing support needs of end users
• Creating content records (metadata) - some argue that this is relatively straight forward process where anyone can do it, while others argue that it is a highly specialised skill
• Ensuring that staff are placing appropriate content into the repository
• Considering the implementation of a mandate (requirement) for all research staff to deposit into the repository
• Educating and investigating rights of who owns what
• Assisting academics in recovering their rights to deposit through direct interaction with their publishers
• Running usability testing with the user community and revising the site interface as a result
• Allaying fears from academics whether or not their publishers will allow them to store their publications in a repository - fears can be allayed because of the SHERPA/ROMEO & JULIET databases but awareness can be low)

Robinson, Mary. (2007). Institutional Repositories: Staff and Skills requirements

Institutional Benefits

Making a business case for a repository within a University means more than simply identifying the associated costs: these have to be set against the benefits that the repository will give. However, this is not a case of comparing two sets of figures - one cost, one benefit - and showing that the repository will be value for money.

Costs vs Strategic benefits

Characterising the benefits of the repository in financial terms is very difficult, as the benefits are more obviously strategic rather than financial. The financial effects themselves are more easily analysed on the macro scale rather than the insitutional scale. A study has been done which looks at the financial benefit in terms of percentage increases in access and efficiency of national R&D investment.

If any institutional advocate is to use an approach of this sort, then it may be best to enlist knowledgeable assistance in financial analysis, as fixing financial gains by an individual institution is complex and investigative. It can be seen that using any predictive financial model in negotiation immediately ties the repository into being seen as a resource stream, rather than anything else. Once money is bought into a discussion it does tend to dominate any other consideration or argument. It could be said that in the world of institutional politics and finances where there are many competing resource issues, that any financial cost-benefit analysis is the wrong approach and one which should be avoided.

While questions about cost and value-for money are reasonable, the benefits of the repository are more clearly seen in the strategic advantage and benefits that it gives in information management, research profile, author service, public and professional reputation and more. Adopting this approach requires sensitivity, as replying to questions about money by appealing to high-level strategy can look like an attempt to side-step financial issues!

Comparitors

In making a case, as general comparators other university information systems can be used: for example, what is the "cost" of the university email system? What is the financial benefit of the email system? The first question can probably be estimated, given time: the second question goes beyond a spread-sheet answer. There are many other comparably strategic or infrastructural systems - the institutional website; timetabling system; library catalogue, or the e-learning environment.

In each case, the overall benefits can be judged against high-level targets and infrastructural needs, but in addition it can be seen that there would be costs and competitive disadvantages if the institution did NOT have the system. There is an RSP presentation on this topic which goes into a little more detail on comparators with other institutional systems.

Integration within the institution

The repository is best seen in this way and is another reason for repository development to be seen as working to integrate the repository into the mainstream of institutional information systems and management. If the repository is seen as a stand-alone project, then not only will be costs and benefits be assessed at a financial level as a self-contained unit, but the repository itself will not be able to provide the benefits that it should.

Integration with other institutional systems is essential. In making a case, link the repository directly into the strategic aims of your particular institution: these are often in the area of research development, information management, public profile, etc all of which relate directly to repository use. Making a case in this way will be intimately connected with each individual institution's needs, political priorities and current concerns and is best constructed locally with that knowledge.

Making a benefits case

As general guidelines, it is best to make a clear case with the more clearly identified costs presented up front, with a persuasive and clearly articulated set of strategic benefits that match institutional priorities. It is better to clearly identify costs without attempting to short-change development resources - it might be tempting to squeeze development work through on the cheap, but the price will be high expectations based on insufficient resources. A repository is a strategic investment and should be funded accordingly.

Costs have been outlined above. Below, find some bullet points that may be useful in constructing a localised case for investment.

• Identify stakeholders within the institution
• Identify stakeholders outside the institution
• Identify stakeholder needs and aspirations
  e.g., within -
  • o Information management
  • o Research management
  • o Assessment and RAE
  • o Institutional profile
  • o Personal profiles
  • o Marketing and publicity
  • o Competitor parity

Clarify how the repository addresses these stakeholders and their needs in the local and national context. Prioritise this information to make your case by identifying who is important in your own insitutional context and what they need, to show the strategic value for your repository:

• 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 in added-value and strategic support
• Quantify costs without undercutting true investment

Remember to link to long-term, added value and high-level institutional goals. For example:

• Information management
• Research management
• Assessment and RAE
• Institutional profile
• Personal profiles
• Marketing and publicity

Defining practical metrics for success

Lastly, as part of any business case, remember to define practical metrics to see if the repository investment is on course. Without pre-defined metrics it is easy for externally derived metrics to be applied by third-parties which may not be appropriate.

For example, do you want your repository to be judged on the absolute number of eprints deposited within the first three months? Within the first year? Or would it be more appropriate to measure the amount of downloads - in which case one popular eprint might be worth 100 unpopular ones. Are content measures appropriate at all?

For strategic value in raising a public profile, would it be better to be judged on the number of local SMEs that have made contact, or used the repository as a result of relevant content being freely available? Create metrics to match the strategic aims of the repository and what you know to be practical.