16 · SPEC Kit 292
lower and upper ranges, with few in the middle
ranges. 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 bud-
get ($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 budget.
For ongoing budgets, there is a similar con-
centration at the ends of the ranges: 50% are be-
low $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 re-
ported by an institution that has a major role in a
state-wide IR initiative.
The primary method of funding both start-up
and ongoing costs is reallocation from existing
budgets, but respondents also reported a signifi-
cant use of new funds. New funds for start-up
costs most often came from grants (implementers,
83%; planners, 22%), the parent institution (50%
and 33%), one-time supplemental funds (33% and
33%), and other sources (50% and 33%) such as
provosts. In almost all cases, reallocated funds are
or will be provided by the library (91% and 80%).
A few respondents got reallocations from one-time
supplemental funds, the information technology
department or parent institution, and other sources
such as student fees.
New funds for ongoing operations most often
are or will be provided by the parent institution,
grants, or the library. Reallocating funds is almost
always the responsibility of the library (78% and
67%). As with start-up funds, a few respondents
got reallocations from one-time supplemental
funds, the information technology department or
parent institution, and student fees.
Not surprisingly, for the majority of implement-
ers, salaries and benefits account for the largest
component of the budget—63% of start-up budgets
and 68% of ongoing budgets, on average. This is
exceeded only by vendor fees for the small num-
ber of institutions whose IR is hosted by an exter-
nal vendor—70% to 74%, on average. Hardware
and software acquisition each account for about a
quarter of the start-up budgets and hardware and
software maintenance account for under 10%, on
average. The allocation for acquisition decreases
slightly for ongoing operations and the mainte-
nance allocations increase correspondingly.
Planners allocate the largest percentage of their
start-up budgets for hardware acquisition (about
58%, on average) and software acquisition (38%)
and a small amount for hardware maintenance
(10%). Only one respondent reported a figure for
staffing and benefits (57%). For the few planners
who have an ongoing operations budget about
three-fourths of the budget is allocated for salary
and benefits. Much of the rest goes to hardware
Hardware and Software
Fifty-three respondents identified the software
that is being use to support their IRs. By far, the
open source DSpace software is the most com-
mon choice of both implementers and planners.
Twenty-three of the 33 responding implementers
and 14 of the 20 planners (70% each) use DSpace;
20 implementers and 11 planners use it exclusively.
Two of the implementers use it in conjunction with
CONTENTdm (commercial software); one of these
also uses the vendor-hosted DigitalCommons sys-
tem. One implementer uses DSpace in conjunction
with ETD-db and Open Conference Systems (both
open source software). Two planners have chosen
it in conjunction with open source Fedora software;
another with commercial software Digitool.
Of the respondents that don’t use DSpace, one
implementer uses open source Archimède software
and two use commercial CONTENTdm software.
Two planners will use open source Fedora software
and one will use open source Greenstone software.
CONTENTdm, Digitool, and Documentum are
the intended commercial systems for one planner
each. The ProQuest DigitalCommons system (or
the software from the Berkeley Electronic Press