[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ARL Institutional Repositories SPEC Kit

I look further at some of the numbers given in the posting: 
(based on in the Executive Summary of the report at 
http://www.arl.org/spec/SPEC292web.pdf) *

>   - The mean cost of IR implementation was $182,550.
>      - The mean annual IR operation cost was $113,543.

Quoting from p. 16 of the Executive Summary:

>For start-up, 67% of budgets fall below $75,000, 14% are $75,000 
>to $125,000, and 19% are $150,000 or greater. The maximum 
>start-up budget ($1,800,000) is far greater than the next 
>highest ($400,000) and is from an institution that included 
>extensive software development and testing costs in its start-up 
>For ongoing budgets, there is a similar concentration at the 
>ends of the ranges: 50% are below $50,000 and 50% are $100,000 
>or greater. The maximum ongoing budget ($500,000) is also much 
>greater than the next highest ($300,000) and is reported by an 
>institution that has a major role in a state-wide IR 

(The Executive summary also give the median, which for those have 
implemented the repository is $45,000 start up --with a minimum 
value of $8,000 and $42,000 operating costs -- with a minimum 
value of $8,600).

It is of course possible to spend a great deal more--in the 
million dollar range--if one counts the costs of developing a 
large-scale-wide network, or extensive new software. Developing a 
such a system is outside the category of Institutional 
Repositories, and should not have been included.

If i were giving a list of key points, I would have at least 
mentioned the low end, especially for the start up costs: It can 
be done for less than $10,000, even at a large research 
university. (And all the ARL libraries are by definition at large 
research universities.)

In giving a brief highlights on a posting, there is a special 
responsibility on the authors of a report such as this. They must 
ensure that the key values properly represent the data, because 
such numbers alone will be what is quoted further.

Perhaps the 22% of ARL libraries not planning an IR are dismayed 
by misleading cost data.

Dr. David Goodman> formerly
Bibliographer and Research Librarian
Princeton University Library


* I will be glad to revise this in the light of the full report, if the authors
will send it to me. If one publishes with only the Executive Summary OA, one
will be judged by that Summary.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles W. Bailey, Jr." <cbailey@uh.edu>
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:14 pm
Subject: ARL Institutional Repositories SPEC Kit
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu

> ARL Institutional Repositories SPEC Kit
> The Institutional Repositories SPEC Kit is now available [1] from
> the Association of Research Libraries (ARL [2]). This document
> presents the results of a thirty-eight-question survey of 123 ARL
> members in early 2006 about their institutional repositories
> practices and plans. The survey response rate was 71% (87 out of
> 123 ARL members responded). The front matter and nine-page
> Executive Summary [3] are freely available. The document also
> presents detailed question-by-question results, a list of
> respondent institutions, representative documents from
> institutions, and a bibliography. It is 176 pages long.
> Here is the bibliographic information: University of Houston
> Libraries Institutional Repository Task Force. Institutional
> Repositories. SPEC Kit 292. Washington, DC: Association of
> Research Libraries, 2006. ISBN: 1-59407-708-8.

> Here are some quick survey results:
>      - Thirty-seven ARL institutions (43% of respondents) had an
>      operational IR (we called these respondents implementers), 31
>     (35%)      were planning one by 2007, and 19 (22%) had no IR plans.
>      - Looked at from the perspective of all 123 ARL members, 30%
>      had an operational IR and, by 2007, that figure may reach 55%.
>      - The mean cost of IR implementation was $182,550.
>      - The mean annual IR operation cost was $113,543.