International Journal on Digital Libraries

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 195–214 | Cite as

An activity-based costing model for long-term preservation and dissemination of digital research data: the case of DANS

  • Anna S. PalaiologkEmail author
  • Anastasios A. Economides
  • Heiko D. Tjalsma
  • Laurents B. Sesink
Open Access


Financial sustainability is an important attribute of a trusted, reliable digital repository. The authors of this paper use the case study approach to develop an activity-based costing (ABC) model. This is used for estimating the costs of preserving digital research data and identifying options for improving and sustaining relevant activities. The model is designed in the environment of the Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) institute, a well-known trusted repository. The DANS–ABC model has been tested on empirical cost data from activities performed by 51 employees in frames of over 40 different national and international projects. Costs of resources are being assigned to cost objects through activities and cost drivers. The ‘euros per dataset’ unit of costs measurement is introduced to analyse the outputs of the model. Funders, managers and other decision-making stakeholders are being provided with understandable information connected to the strategic goals of the organisation. The latter is being achieved by linking the DANS–ABC model to another widely used managerial tool—the Balanced Scorecard (BSC). The DANS–ABC model supports costing of services provided by a data archive, while the combination of the DANS–ABC with a BSC identifies areas in the digital preservation process where efficiency improvements are possible.


Digital preservation costs Data archiving Cost drivers Activity-based costing Cost model Balanced scorecard Cost estimation Performance measurement Strategic planning Funding Organisational structure Total quality management DANS ABC BSC 



We would like to thank all the employees of DANS for their active support and participation in this work. Special thanks goes to Valentijn Gilissen, Maarten Hoogerwerf, Rutger Kramer and Lucas Pasteuning.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.


  1. 1.
    Adler P.S.: When knowledge is the critical resource, knowledge management is the critical task. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 36(2), 87–94 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ayris, P., Davies, R., McLeod, R., Miao, R., Shenton, H., Wheatley, P.: The LIFE2 final project report. Research report. LIFE Project, London, UK (2008). Retrieved 5 Oct 2008
  3. 3.
    Baskerville R., Pries-Heje J.: Knowledge capability and maturity in software management. DATA BASE Adv. Inf. Syst. 30(2), 26–42 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beagrie, N.A., Chruszcz, J., Lavoie, B.: keeping research data safe: a cost model and guidance for UK Universities, JISC, London (2008). Retrieved 5 Oct 2008
  5. 5.
    Bellinger, M.: Cost and business models for digital preservation: Developing digital life cycle management services at OCLC. In: 4th Forum of Digital Preservation Coalition “Preservation of e-Learning Materials and Cost Models for Digital Preservation”. London, 15 October 2002. Retrieved 1 Nov 2009
  6. 6.
    Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) Interim Report: Sustaining the digital investment: issues and challenges of economically sustainable digital preservation. Technical Report on Sustainable Digital Preservation and Access, National Science Foundation, December 2008. Retrieved 5 May 09
  7. 7.
    Booth, B., Banks, M., Hunolt, G.: Cost estimation tool enhanced operational comparables database (2006). Retrieved 10 Dec 2008, 10 Oct 2008
  8. 8.
    Bradway B., Ross S.: Measuring corporate customer profitability: the role of activity-based cost analysis. Corp. Cust. Manag. 4(Research Brief 6), 1–10 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cokins G.: Activity-Based Costing: Making It Work. Mc Graw Hill, Boston (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cokins G.: Learning to love ABC. J. Account. 188(2), 37–39 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cokins G.: Overcoming the obstacles to implementing activity-based costing. Bank Account. Finance 14(1), 47–52 (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cooper R., Kaplan R.S.: Measure costs right: make the right decisions. Harv. Bus. Rev. 66, 96–103 (1988)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS): Reference model for an open archival information system (OAIS), CCSDS 650.0-B-1 Blue Book (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Currall, J., McKinney, P.: espida Handbook (2007). Retrieved 15 May 11
  15. 15.
    DeMarco T.: Controlling Software Projects: Management, Measurement and Estimates. Prentice Hall, PTR, Upper Saddle River (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dodgson M.: Organisational learning: a review of some literature. Org. Stud. 14(3), 375–394 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eisenhardt K.M.: Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14(4), 532–550 (1989)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ERPANET: Cost orientation tool (2003). Retrieved 10 Dec 2008
  19. 19.
    Fontaine, K., Hunolt, G., Booth, A., Banks, M.: Observations on cost modelling and performance measurement of long-term archives. NASA research paper in PV2007 Conference Proceedings (2007). Retrieved 10 Dec 2008
  20. 20.
    Grady R.B., Caswell D.L.: Software Metrics: Establishing a Company-Wide Program. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River (1987)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gumbus A., Lussier R.N.: Entrepreneurs use a balanced scorecard to translate strategy into performance measures. J. Small Bus. Manag. 44(3), 407–425 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hall T., Fenton N.: Implementing effective software metrics programs. IEEE Softw. 14(2), 55–65 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Helmi M., Hindi N.: Activity-based costing in banking: a big challenge. J. Bank Cost Manag. Account. 9(2), 5–19 (1996)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hockx-Yu H.: Digital preservation in the context of institutional repositories. Program Electron. Libr. Inf. Syst. 40(3), 232–243 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Horngren C.T., Datar S.M., Foster G.: Cost Accounting—A Managerial Emphasis, 11th edn. Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hunolt, G.: Users’ guide cost estimation toolkit (CET), version 2.1 (2006a). Retrieved 10 Dec 2008
  27. 27.
    Hunolt, G.: Technical description document cost estimation toolkit (CET), version 2.1 (2006b). Retrieved 10 Dec 2008
  28. 28.
    Hunolt, G., Booth, B., Banks, M.: Cost estimation toolkit (CET), version 2.1 (2006). Retrieved 10 Dec 2008
  29. 29.
    Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P.: The balanced scorecard—measures that drive performance. Harv. Bus. Rev. 70(1), 71–79 (1992)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P.: Putting the balanced scorecard to work. Harv. Bus. Rev. 71(5), 134–142 (1993)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P.: Why does business need a balanced scorecard?. J. Cost Manag. 11(ER), 5–11 (1997)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kroll, K.M.: The ABCs Revisited. Industry Week (254:22), December, pp. 19–21 (1996)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Larsen T.J., Levine L.: Information systems: current issues and future changes. DATA BASE Adv. Inf. Syst. 30(2), 7–11 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mcleod, R., Wheatley, P., Ayris, P.: Lifecycle information for e-literature: full report from the LIFE project (LIFE Project, London, UK) (2006).
  35. 35.
    Nationaal Archief: Costs of digital preservation, version 1.0, May 2005 (Digital Preservation Testbed, The Hague, Netherlands) (2005a). Retrieved 10 Dec 2008
  36. 36.
    Nationaal Archief: Digital preservation cost model, version 1.0, 20 April 2005 (Digital Preservation Testbed, The Hague, Netherlands) (2005b). Retrieved 10 Dec 2008
  37. 37.
    Netherlands Coalition for Digital Preservation (NCDD): A future for our digital memory permanent access to information in the Netherlands: Interim report—summary in English Netherlands (2009). Retrieved 5 Jan 2010
  38. 38.
    Olsen, R.: Activity-Based Costing: A Decision-Making Tool, The Manufacturing Report. Lionheart Publishing, Inc., Atlanta (1998). Retrieved 10 Oct 2008
  39. 39.
    Ooi G., Soh C.: Developing an activity-based costing approach for system development and implementation. DATA BASE Adv. Inf. Syst. Summer (2003) 34(3), 54–70 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pfleeger S.L.: Lessons learned in building a corporate metrics program. IEEE Softw. 10(3), 67–74 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Reimain B.C., Kaplan R.S.: The ABCs of accounting for value creation. Plan. Rev. 18(4), 33–34 (1990)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    RLG/OCLC Working Group on Digital Archive Attributes: Trusted Digital Repositories: Attributes and Responsibilities. RLG, Mountain View, CA (2002). Retrieved 15 May 2011
  43. 43.
    Ross, S., McHugh, A.: The Role of Evidence in Establishing Trust in Repositories. D-Lib Magazine, vol. 12, No. 7/8 (2006). Retrieved 15 May 2011
  44. 44.
    Roztocki, N., Valenzuela, J.F., Porter, J.D., Monk, R.M., Needy, K.L.: A procedure for smooth implementation of activity based costing in small companies. In: Proceedings ASEM national conference, Virginia Beach, October 21–23, pp. 279–288, (1999)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sesink, L., Horik, R., Harmsen, H. (eds): Data Seal of Approval—quality guidelines for digital research data. The Hague, Data Archiving and Networked Services, 2nd ed. DANS (2010). ISBN 978 9490 531 027. Retrieved 15 May 2011
  46. 46.
    Shenton, H.: Life cycle collection management. LIBER Q. 13, 254–272 (2003). Retrieved 10 Dec 2008
  47. 47.
    Soin K., Seal W., Cullen J.: ABC and organizational change: an institutional perspective. Manag. Account. Res. 13(2), 249–271 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stephens A.: The application of life cycle costing in libraries. Br. J. Acad. Librariansh. 3, 82–88 (1988)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Stephens A.: The application of life cycle costing in libraries: a case study based on acquisition and retention of library materials in the British library. IFLA J. 20, 130–140 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Stewart A.C., Carpenter-Hubin J.: The balanced scorecard: beyond reports and rankings. Plan. High. Educ. 29(2), 37–42 (2000)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Waller, M., Sharpe, R.: Mind the Gap: Assessing Digital Preservation Needs in the UK. Digital Preservation Coalition, York (2006). Retrieved 10 Dec 2008

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna S. Palaiologk
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Anastasios A. Economides
    • 3
  • Heiko D. Tjalsma
    • 2
  • Laurents B. Sesink
    • 2
  1. 1.University of MacedoniaKavalaGreece
  2. 2.Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)Den HaagThe Netherlands
  3. 3.University of MacedoniaThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations