The report ‘Preserving Email’ is authored by Chris Prom, Assistant University Archivist at the University of Illinois. During 2009-10, as part of the Fulbright Distinguished Scholar Award, Chris directed a research project at the Centre for Archive and Information Studies at the University of Dundee concerning “Practical Approaches to Identifying, Preserving, and Providing Access to Electronic Records”. This included a major focus on preservation of email.

Neil Beagrie, Director of Consultancy at Charles Beagrie Ltd, was commissioned to act as principal investigator and managing editor of the new series in 2011.  The managing editor has been further supported by an Editorial Board drawn from DPC members and peer reviewers who have commented on the text prior to release.  The Editorial Board comprises William Kilbride (Chair), Neil Beagrie (Series Editor), Janet Delve (University of Portsmouth), Tim Keefe (Trinity College Dublin), Andrew McHugh (University of Glasgow), Dave Thompson (Wellcome Library).

The full text of the report is available now to DPC members (from the DPC member web pages – accessible by DPC members only) but it is expected to have its wider public release on the DPC website in late January or early February 2012. The public release and url for the public version will be announced on release.

The JISC agreement offers a substantial discount to consortium members on the individual library rate that would apply. As of 12 October 2011, 57 UK university libraries have joined the Portico e-journal archive (20 of these are since July 2011 and as part of the new JISC Collections agreement). Take-up of the e-books archive has been much lower so far: only the SHEDL libraries (where e-journal and e-book archive membership was bundled) and 5 out of the 20 new UK library members have taken this option.

Membership of Portico acts as an “insurance policy” should post-cancellation access arrangements with a participating publisher fail and provides a fully out-sourced service. The Portico archive service is discussed in more detail in a JISC Collections Guide to e-Archiving Solutions.

The Toolkit consists of two tools: the KRDS Benefits Framework (Tool 1); and the Value-chain and Benefits Impact tool (Tool 2). Each tool consists of a detailed guide and worksheet(s). Both tools have drawn on partner case studies and previous work on benefits and impact for digital curation/preservation. This experience has provided a series of common examples of generic benefits that are employed in both tools for users to modify or add to as required.

The KRDS Benefits Framework (Tool 1) is the “entry-level” tool requiring Less experience and effort to implement and can be used as a stand-alone tool in many tasks. It can also be the starting point and provide input to the use of the Value-chain and Impact analysis.

The Value-chain and Benefits Impact analysis (Tool 2) is the more advanced tool in the Toolkit and requires more experience and effort to implement. It is likely to be most useful in a smaller sub-set of longer-term and intensive activities such as evaluation and strategic planning.

The combined Toolkit provides a very flexible set of tools, worksheets, and lists of examples of generic benefits and potential metrics. These are available for use in different combinations appropriate to needs and level of expertise.

Guides for the toolkit and each individual tool and case studies of completed examples of the worksheets provide documentation and support for your own implementation.

In addition we have updated the KRDS Factsheet (new version 2 July 2011) and the KRDS User Guide (new version 2 July 2011) on the KRDS web site. The benefits toolkit is also linked from there. For future reference please bookmark the KRDS web site as all the latest KRDS tools and materials and updates are/will be accessible from that access point.

Tools Background

This is a six month project funded by JISC, testing developing and documenting a toolkit consisting of two evolving tools, the KRDS Benefits Framework and the Value Chain and Benefits Impact tool. The Benefits Framework is the entry level tool and Value Chain and Benefits Impact tool is more advanced with a narrower range of applicable activities. Any benefit from digital curation should fit within the Framework and can be reworded and adapted to fit with the local application. From the funders perspective the easily tailored benefits offer a consistent and powerful way of stimulating thinking. The toolkit’s official release date is July 31^st.

Welcome and Project Background (Liz Lyon UKOLN) [Presentation]

The Toolset (Neil Beagrie, Charles Beagrie Ltd) [Presentation]

Case Studies

Dipak Kalra (Centre for Health Informatics and Multi-professional Education (CHIME) at UCL)

The toolkit was used in an MRC data support service investigation to understand how data sharing takes place. He presented results via a ‘virtual study’ that took all six studies into account to be more comprehensive. Generic benefits were taken from the tool and given a localised expression etc. He summarised that the tool should work for these kinds of studies though some parts are more applicable. Working through a toolkit could be of value for studies and particularly useful for putting forward a case for funding or prioritising resource utilisation within a study. Completing the spreadsheet and working out weightings might be nicely undertaken in a team workshop.

[Presentation]

Catherine Hardman (Archaeology Data Service)

In this case the toolkit was used from the point of view of a repository (more a macro level than micro), for looking in particular at issues of cost in the lifecycle. Archives often have to help justify costs/ effort associated with digital preservation even if they are well established. This can be used to address a range of audiences and with different levels of complexity- in individual projects or within project teams to boost cases for support. The value chain can help with identifying different values for different audiences. Quantification of impact can help in a number of ways: in research bid terms it helps justify resources; in archive preparation terms it helps with selection and retention decisions. The tool can be used as a light touch to help persuade stakeholders of benefits or for deeper insight into project planning decisions.

[Presentation]

Monica Duke (SageCite Project)

Here the tools were used to assess the benefits of data citation, an undertaking with a project perspective based on an organisation whose main business is science. It showed direct benefits as well as indirect ones such as better discovery of network models and better access. The Benefits Framework was easy to apply and helped to articulate benefits, although an intermediary may be required to facilitate the process.

[Presentation]

Matthew Woollard (UK Data Archive (UKDA) at University of Essex)

The tools were put into practice at the UK Data Archive and used to emphasise benefits to stakeholders. They helped to prioritise internal activities, justify costs to stakeholders and give an understanding of the service impact. They showed where value added is needed, where value is added, and who can benefit and when. The framework for activities seems to be where it will be of most use. It is important to note that generic benefits may have impacts to more than one stakeholder.

[Presentation]

Discussion

Q: What is the ongoing support for the tool?

• It will be present on the project website with a persistent web archive copy. There is a commitment to make it continuously available and it may be updated in future in light of future projects and applications. There is extensive documentation and if the need were felt for more support there is the potential for consultancy and assistance from Charles Beagrie Ltd as required.

Q: Do you see it incorporated within an outline data management plan?

• I can definitely see an advantage in the benefits framework. You can also use the value chain in a data heavy project, possibly when sitting down as a project group.

Q: Are we going to get too many statements on value, many of which are blatantly obvious rather than generically just true? If expressions are generic it would be better to cut them out.

• The tool is for focussing the mind and the generic examples only a starting point for what should be customised specific statements of value. In terms of presentation in the user guide we present an alternative version of the completed Framework with more specific examples and level of detail for the benefits. The user should have the ability to select those points of greatest impact for specific stakeholders and develop them ie not presenting a generic benefit.
• We are interested in ensuring researchers can do research and explaining value to the government and other stakeholders. If you’re promoting data sharing benefits then also promoting them to an internal audience is important and powerful for motivation.
• Research Councils can be deluged with metrics- it is better to have a few, simple and powerfully chosen. Case studies are incredibly powerful though not sufficient on their own. You spend little time discussing them compared to the time taken to create them. A case study should actually illustrate a metric.
• The Benefits Framework looks helpful in learning and preparation- in evaluation it should then be less necessary.
• Part of what we are doing is upping the game with studies and funders. Funders will need to respond proactively. There is a need for a more forceful tool but it is premature to deliver it now, such as a planning tool allowing the user to take up to three actions and workup a two or three year action plan. This is a possible direction of travel in the future.

Q: Homogenisation? What does it mean for funders when there is a long checklist of benefits? If established where will it lead us? Funders will have to look closely and make sure they are used carefully to draw out where we want benefits to accrue. Who is this making life easier for?

• Hopefully for researchers. They often have a box to fill in anyway but generally it is not well structured. The framework is fast to use, not a heavyweight commitment. We would hope it could make filling in of a benefits statement richer without much extra work as it provides a more advanced starting point for brainstorming the benefits.
• This has to be looked at against administrative burden. If it enables the user to identify and realise benefits they otherwise would not have realised then it has an advantage. If it isn’t repaid by better realisation of benefits then it deserves to fail.
• The process of using the tool can have valuable results in itself.
• Many benefits feed into other benefits. The funder should ask for requirements, it’s not necessary to show everything. This is a platform that everyone can use in a way that benefits them.
• There is value in prioritisation and communication. If we can work with researchers to highlight the key impacts of what they’re doing then the tool when simply done is of real value.

Q: We are talking about potential benefits- they haven’t actually been achieved. I can see the theoretical value but am worried these benefits could be three or four years ahead of what we can actually achieve.

• The time element of the framework does bring that in. We’re trying to think not just of the long term but how to get there and any benefits along the way. The element is there but you must have some degree of caution with how you apply this tool in the same way as any other.

Q: You mentioned OCLC is a partner in the project. Are they involved because of their interest in cataloguing and metadata?

• Our partner is the research division within OCLC which has a broad range of interests within digital library research. Brian Lavoie who has had an important input to this project and KRDS is a research scientist there. As an economist he has taken a close interest in the economics and benefits of digital preservation and this has been an important theme within OCLC Research – hence their interest and active participation in the project.

Q: I’m not sure who’s going to use the tool. What audience are you promoting it to? Will it mean a generic standard will be adopted?

• Different sectors or disciplines are different. There aren’t homogenous states so there will always be bespoke relevant next steps in working from the tools.
• Examples of all the common benefits listed are not seen in every project. There should always be a degree of selection so you wouldn’t end up with homogenous benefits in every case. Generic benefits should also be customised and expressed in ways specific to a particular project or service.
• What you may have to do is demonstrate your benefits to a wider audience not just a primary beneficiary so sometimes the wider list of benefits is also helpful. It is good to put in front of workers to demonstrate why things are done in a certain way. The audience is not as wide as we would like it to be but the value to those who can use it is great.
• The case studies presented are tailored towards particular projects/services but it can be adapted without too much additional tailoring. There may be elements which need to be tweaked.
• I think there is value beyond the digital preservation community particularly for the Framework and maybe other versions could be needed tailored to those other audiences.

• Arguments for further funding are always made on the science; informatics communities to some extent are disenfranchised. Anything we can do that supports honesty and helps to get discussion going within studies by linking benefits to science and data management must be good. If the Framework can accommodate different perspectives of benefits and allows them to be joined up in the story then we should try it out to more people.
• There can be reciprocal benefits or benefits with clear knock on effects to each other. Actions may give benefits to the user, which give benefits to the creator.
• Could there be eventual development of a web/matrix of benefits? Not one-to-one or even two-way but a network with flow going around it.

Q: Good ideas unless heavily marketed don’t take off. Even if there is a benefit to a tool it wouldn’t be given unless people know to use it. Are there steps funders would advise to encourage researchers and services pro-actively in seizing benefits and using the tools?

• Will people be persuaded to use the tool to compete? You only compete if a competition is created.
• Once certain good policies are floating around everyone uses them to tick the box whether they are applicable or not.

Q: Will presentations from the workshop be available later?

• Yes we intend to make them available later and a short write-up of the day and key areas of discussion.

The Toolkit is nearing its final version and we are adding case studies and worked examples ready for online release at the end of this month.

For those looking for an early taster (and not attending the workshop), here is a quick preview:

The Toolkit consists of two tools: the KRDS Benefits Framework (now in public version 3); and the Value-chain and Benefits Impact tool (now in public version 2). Each tool consists of a more detailed guide and worksheet(s). Both tools have drawn on partner case studies and previous work on benefits and impact for digital curation/preservation. This experience has provided a series of common examples of generic benefits that are employed in both tools for users to modify or add to as required.

It is designed for use by a wide audience including funders, researchers and project staff, and personnel in university central services, data archives and repositories.

I think the project has moved the usability of the KRDS Benefits Framework and the Value-chain and Impact tool on immensely from their early research project roots. Hopefully both existing and new users will find the new Toolkit a big improvement and valuable in their day to day work.

We will announce its release when finalised at the end of July via various email lists and this blog.

Workshop registration is free but please note that places are limited and early registration is advised. Further details of the workshop are as follows:

12.30 -16.00 Tuesday 12th July, 2011 South Bank University, Central London

Programme:
12.30 – 13.15 Registration and buffet lunch
13.15 – 13.25 Welcome and Project Background (Liz Lyon UKOLN)
13.25 – 13.55 The Toolset (Neil Beagrie, Charles Beagrie Ltd)
13.55 – 14.50 Disciplinary Test Sites and Applications (chair Manjula Patel UKOLN)

• Dipak Kalra (Centre for Health Informatics and Multi-professional Education at UCL)
• Matthew Woollard (UK Data Archive University of Essex)
• Liz Lyon and Monica Duke (SageCite Project)
• Catherine Hardman (Archaeology Data Service)

14.50 – 15.00 Implications for Funders (Neil Beagrie)
15.00 – 15.20 Break and refreshments
15.20 – 16.00 Plenary Discussion and Questions (chair Liz Lyon, UKOLN)
16.00 Close
—————————
Background

The “Digital Preservation Benefit Analysis Tools” project is funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) and runs from 1st February to 31 July 2011.

The project has tested and reviewed the combined use of the Keeping Research Data Safe (KRDS) Benefits Framework and the Value Chain and Impact Analysis tool, which were first applied in the I2S2 project for assessing the benefits and impact of digital preservation of research data. We have extended their utility to, and adoption within, the JISC community by providing user review and guidance for the tools and creating an integrated toolset. The project consortium consists of a mix of user institutions, projects, and disciplinary data services committed to the testing and exploitation of these tools and the lead partners in their original creation.

The project plan is on the project website and the project outputs will be available from the website during the summer.

The project partners are UKOLN and the Digital Curation Centre at the University of Bath,the Centre for Health Informatics and Multi-professional Education (CHIME) at University College London , the UK Data Archive (University of Essex), the Archaeology Data Service (University of York), OCLC Research, and Charles Beagrie Limited.

The collaboration will produce a series of 5 Technology Watch Reports over the next 12 months under the general supervision of an editorial board and Neil Beagrie as principal investigator and commissioning editor. The 5 proposed reports and their authors are as follows:

• Preserving Email, Chris Prom
• Preserving Moving Picture and Sound, Richard Wright
• Intellectual Property Rights for Preservation, Andrew Charlesworth
• Digital Forensics and Preservation, Jeremy Leighton John
• Trust in Post Cancellation Access Services, Neil Beagrie

The DPC is establishing an editorial board for the series. It will be chaired by William Kilbride, Executive Director of the DPC.

The collaboration represents an exciting new development for the DPC and Charles Beagrie Ltd and the opportunity is being taken to re-vamp the design and layout of the new series. Content outlines for individual reports will be shared with DPC members and shaped by their needs and requirements. DPC members will have a period of privileged advance access to each report prior to wider public release.

The DPC Technology Watch Report series was established in 2002 and has been one of the Coalition’s most enduring contributions to the wider digital preservation community.  They exist to provide authoritative support and foresight to those engaged with digital preservation or having to tackle digital preservation problems for the first time. These publications support members work forces, they identify disseminate and discuss best practices and they lower the barriers to participation in digital preservation.

‘Each ‘Technology Watch Report’ analyses a particular topic in digital preservation, evaluating workable solutions, and investigating new tools and techniques appropriate for different contexts,’ explained William Kilbride of the DPC.  ‘The reports are written by leaders-in-the-field and are peer-reviewed prior to publication.  The intended audience is worldwide, especially in the UK, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, USA, and Canada.’

‘We expect that these reports will have a wide readership,’ explained Neil Beagrie, the commissioning editor.  ‘The audience includes members and non-members of the coalition; staff of commercial and public agencies; repository managers, librarians and archivists charged with managing electronic resources; senior staff and executives of intellectual property organizations in the private and public sectors; those who teach and train information scientists; as well as policy advisors requiring an advanced introduction to specific issues and researchers developing DP solutions.’

Further publicity on each report in the series will be released over the course of the next 12 months to DPC members and the wider community.  The draft outline of contents for the first report – Preserving Email – has already been compiled and will be distributed shortly.

• To find out more about the DPC and its Technology Watch series, including the current ones in the set, see: http://www.dpconline.org/advice/technology-watch-reports
• For more about Charles Beagrie Ltd, see: http://www.beagrie.com/

The official description of the broadcast is as follows: The poet Wendy Cope has sold her archive to the British Library for £32,000, a bounty that includes everything from letters, diaries and drafts to more than 40,000 emails.John Sutherland, professor of literature at University College London, and Richard Ovenden, of the Bodleian Library, consider whether emails really denote a digital form of art, and what impact the email will have for future literary research.

The Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR) has now published the report, Digital Forensics and Born-Digital Content in Cultural Heritage Collections, by Matthew G. Kirschenbaum, Richard Ovenden, and Gabriela Redwine.

Digital forensics was once specialised to fields of law enforcement, computer security, and national defence, but because most records today are born digital, libraries, archives, and other collecting institutions increasingly receive computer storage media-and sometimes entire computers-as part of their acquisition of “papers.” Staff at these institutions face challenges such as accessing and preserving legacy formats, recovering data, ensuring authenticity, and maintaining trust. The methods and tools that forensics experts have developed can be useful in meeting these challenges. For example, the same forensics software that indexes a criminal suspect’s hard drive allows the archivist to prepare a comprehensive manifest of the electronic files a donor has turned over for accession.

The report introduces the field of digital forensics in the cultural heritage sector and explores some points of convergence between the interests of those charged with collecting and maintaining born-digital cultural heritage materials and those charged with collecting and maintaining legal evidence.

Digital Forensics and Born-Digital Content in Cultural Heritage Collections is now available electronically at http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub149abst.html. Print copies will be available in January for ordering through CLIR’s Web site, for $25 per copy plus shipping and handling.

I’ve downloaded the electronic edition but have yet to read it (that’s part of  my Xmas reading sorted) but if the seminar is anything to go by it will be a great contribution to the emerging field on personal digital collections and the curation of digital heritage.

The KRDS User Guide has been developed to support easier assimilation of the combined work of the KRDS1 and KRDS2 projects by those wishing to implement the tools or key findings.

KRDS is a cost framework that can be used to develop and apply local cost models for research data management and long-term preservation. In addition, it includes a Benefits Taxonomy and discussion of benefits which provides a valuable starting point and framework for assessing the impact and benefits of research data management and preservation activities. Finally, KRDS has been a significant research project establishing many key “rules of thumb” for digital preservation costs and approaches to sustaining digital research data. Even those who do not wish to or cannot allocate the resources to develop local models based on KRDS are likely to benefit from its key findings and exemplars, covered in later sections of the Guide.

The Use Guide consists of 39 A4 pages with 15 illustrations (many created specifically for this Guide) and covers the following major areas:

The KRDS Costs Framework;

A Brief “How To” Guide For Life-Cycle Cost Analysis;

KRDS Benefits Analysis;

KRDS Case Studies, Costs Survey, and Factsheet;

Future Development of KRDS.

We hope the User Guide will be of value to the digital preservation and research data communities. In addition to the User Guide we have created the new KRDS webpage which provides a single point of access for the key outputs of both the KRDS1 and KRDS2 projects (including the two recent works of synthesis the KRDS User Guide and the KRDS Factsheet).

The Keeping Research Data Safe studies have been 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. The creation of the Guide has been funded by the JISC Managing Research Data Programme.

We welcome feedback from users of the Guide which will help enhance and update future editions.