Identifying the Benefits
Once the main stakeholders have been identified it is useful to map out their needs and aspirations in key areas:
- Information management
- Research management
- Assessment and REF
- Institutional profile
- Personal profiles
- Marketing and publicity
- Competitor parity
The next task is then to 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 institutional 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
Financial 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 institutional scale. Houghton and Sheehan (2006) considered the financial benefit of enhanced access to research findings 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 brought 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 sidestep financial issues!
Comparators
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 spreadsheet 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.
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 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.
Houghton, J. and Sheehan, P.(2006). The economic impact of enhanced access to research findings. CSES Working Paper no. 23. Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University. [Online]. Available at: http://www.cfses.com/documents/wp23.pdf. Accessed September 27, 2010.
