Versions Compared

Old Version 2

changes.mady.by.user Jon Corson-Rikert

Saved on

compared with

New Version 3

changes.mady.by.user Jon Corson-Rikert

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Business model

Basic elements

...

to determine operational (not development) cost
  • Amount of data from the institution
    • this affects the processing time that needs to be allocated as well as the increment to the size of the index
  • Frequency of update (again based on the processing and oversight/validation required for indexing)
  • Support
    • providing feedback on bad data, especially to people new to ontologies and RDF
    • addressing performance issues at the distributed data sources (especially if harvesting degrades the function of their production VIVO app)
    • there will have to be a startup fee with some number of hours of support included, and then the ability to redirect further support to a list of consultants or companies willing to provide help

...

It will be much cleaner to separate sponsorship from participation in production services.

  • You sponsor An institution sponsors VIVO to support the effort, as well as influence and hasten its development
  • You sign An institution signs up for a service if you want your data to be included in that service
  • Question: what will our policy be around in-kind development/testing/requirements gathering?
    • Simplest answer: the institutions contributing in-kind will have the most influence, but not exclusive influence or veto power.  They should be contributing based on the importance of search to themselves, both in general and/or specific features
    • Question: how does the Kuali community handle this?  I believe from what Penn representatives said that they have two distinct aspects to sponsorship:
      • join the Kuali foundation where an investment in all the infrastructure, and pay for the legal entity
        • when do that, participate in the foundation governance -- e.g., on the Kuali Rice board
      • then contribute to project costs for the product you want to use
        • e.g., participate on the governance, technical, and functional councils of the OLE project
        • as well as strategic governing board

What questions does this leave unanswered?

  • If an institution has no interest in sponsoring VIVO as software – say, if they run Profiles or another tool – but they want to sponsor development and ongoing improvement of the VIVO search tools, do we have a special category of sponsorship for that?
    • Answer: we already offer the standard DuraSpace bronze ($2500), silver ($5,000), and gold ($10,000) levels for VIVO, but these do not included participation or voting rights on the VIVO Sponsors Committee (see prospectus)
    • Follow-up question: how will non-voting sponsors affect direction/priorities for any aspect of VIVO?
  • Open question: will there be a forum for sponsors to address priorities for search?
  • Open question: will VIVO search be governed differently than VIVO?
Areas that may get messy
  • Founding sponsors may expect not to be nickel & dimed
  • Balancing in-kind support, sponsorship, and service fees
  • VIVO multi-institutional search is not entirely separable from internal search at one VIVO institution 
    • There were pilot efforts to extend local search to the 8-institution index in Spring, 2011
    • This will likely come up again on wish lists
    • There may be interest in doing this from other platforms
      • Is the VIVO searchlight relevant here?
      • Would the OpenSocial platform-neutral approach be relevant?
    Business model could have a fee scale based on data size
Limits to what we can charge

...