Scope of the ADMP group

11 Nov 2014

Hi everyone,  

While I agree that we need to move towards automating many aspects of the data management planning process, I'd also like to suggest that this group focus on addressing some of the cultural challenges as well.  

DMPs can (and should!) evolve and this is possible using the current data management plan tools on offer. I also beleive  that there could be scope to develop funder views into tools like DMPonline and DMPTool if there was a demand. However, from my experience, there doesn’t seem to be much appetite for monitoring plans at the moment - at least in the UK. 

I think this group could be instrumental in fostering a change in culture. For instance, getting some community agreement on whether HEIs should be retaining a copy of the grant application phase DMP for evidence of what was agreed in the grant. If so, should this be retained by the Research Office or the PI? Would it be given an identifer?

We also need to identify some good practice when it comes to PIs managing and updating in-award DMPs. Who else might need to have access to these and how would it be facilitated? Researchers using DMPonline for instance can provide write access to collaborators in their own institutions and externally to help develop the plans and can provide read-only access to others who might need to know the content. 

It would also be good to try and reach some level of agreement on whether post award DMPs should be submitted as public documents to instiutional or subject based repositories and how post award DMPs should be linked to the data outputs (e.g., via the Jisc research data registry or Research Data Australia) to improve provenance. We might also need to consider who owns each version of the DMP and how long each version might need to be retained.   

All the best,

Joy 

 

  • Rob Hooft's picture

    Author: Rob Hooft

    Date: 11 Nov, 2014

    Joy,

    An interesting perspective. To contrast with that, I have heard that in the USA, where some experiences with DMP are a few years ahead of us here in Europe, they have seen that if there is no funder followup on the DMP it will stay a plan and it will not actually be executed (allocated money will be directed elsewhere). There is therefore a trend towards truly enforcing the execution of the DMP. This also makes it live: obviously in every project there are unforeseen circumstances, and if a deliverable can not be made because it is OBE, the DMP will need adjusting.

    For larger projects in the Life Sciences, we have had a discussion a while ago (involving Carole Goble) that these should probably have a dedicated WP for data stewardship. Having a dedicated WP led by a data expert that is held responsible for data stewardship explicitly will also ensure that the plans will stay alive. This setup is especially useful for science fields for which the subject matter experts do not have a large affinity with IT.

    Regards,

    Rob Hooft

    > On Nov 11, 2014, at 14:30 , Joy Davidson wrote:
    >
    > Hi everyone,
    >
    > While I agree that we need to move towards automating many aspects of the data management planning process, I'd also like to suggest that this group focus on addressing some of the cultural challenges as well.
    >
    > DMPs can (and should!) evolve and this is possible using the current data management plan tools on offer. I also beleive that there could be scope to develop funder views into tools like DMPonline and DMPTool if there was a demand. However, from my experience, there doesn’t seem to be much appetite for monitoring plans at the moment - at least in the UK.
    >
    > I think this group could be instrumental in fostering a change in culture. For instance, getting some community agreement on whether HEIs should be retaining a copy of the grant application phase DMP for evidence of what was agreed in the grant. If so, should this be retained by the Research Office or the PI? Would it be given an identifer?
    >
    > We also need to identify some good practice when it comes to PIs managing and updating in-award DMPs. Who else might need to have access to these and how would it be facilitated? Researchers using DMPonline for instance can provide write access to collaborators in their own institutions and externally to help develop the plans and can provide read-only access to others who might need to know the content.
    >
    > It would also be good to try and reach some level of agreement on whether post award DMPs should be submitted as public documents to instiutional or subject based repositories and how post award DMPs should be linked to the data outputs (e.g., via the Jisc research data registry or Research Data Australia) to improve provenance. We might also need to consider who owns each version of the DMP and how long each version might need to be retained.
    >
    > All the best,
    >
    > Joy
    >
    >
    > --
    > Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/active-data-management-plans/post/scope-ad...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/46458


    Rob W.W. Hooft || Skype: robhooft || Phone: +31 6 27034319
    DTL Programme Manager Life Science Data @ Netherlands eScience Center
    Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences || http://www.dtls.nl/

  • Joy Davidson's picture

    Author: Joy Davidson

    Date: 11 Nov, 2014

    Thanks Rob,

    If there are any examples of how follow-up is being handled by specific funding bodies it would be great to share them amongst this group. We’re always on the lookout for additional drivers and potential benefits to share with colleagues in the UK so if there are any examples from other countries that we can look at that would be great. Where funds have been allocated for specific RDM activity, it would be interesting to know how the decisions are made regarding whether the plan is being properly executed or not.

    In the dmp training we provide through the DCC, we advise researchers that the plan is more than likely going to change over the course of the project and suggest that researchers review and update their plans regularly – at least as often as they report to their funding body on the project’s progress more widely. Depending on how plans are going to be monitored and how their implementation is judged, we may need to provide some guidance to researchers on just how much a plan can change to remain in line with what was agreed in the grant. A few funders here in the UK seek only an outline plan at the grant application stage followed by a fuller plan written in conjunction with the funder upon award. This might be a more practical approach and may yield more realistic and implementable plans in the future.

    The data stewardship WP is an interesting idea. The open research data pilot allows proposals to state whether they will submit a DMP and/or handle DMP aspects through a dedicated workpackage so this approach may be tested more broadly in some H2020 funded projects.

    All the best,
    Joy

    From: rob.hooft=dtls.nl@rda-groups.org [mailto:rob.hooft=dtls.nl@rda-groups.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hooft
    Sent: 11 November 2014 14:26
    To: rda-datamanagplans@rda-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [rda-datamanagplans] Scope of the ADMP group

    Joy,

    An interesting perspective. To contrast with that, I have heard that in the USA, where some experiences with DMP are a few years ahead of us here in Europe, they have seen that if there is no funder followup on the DMP it will stay a plan and it will not actually be executed (allocated money will be directed elsewhere). There is therefore a trend towards truly enforcing the execution of the DMP. This also makes it live: obviously in every project there are unforeseen circumstances, and if a deliverable can not be made because it is OBE, the DMP will need adjusting.

    For larger projects in the Life Sciences, we have had a discussion a while ago (involving Carole Goble) that these should probably have a dedicated WP for data stewardship. Having a dedicated WP led by a data expert that is held responsible for data stewardship explicitly will also ensure that the plans will stay alive. This setup is especially useful for science fields for which the subject matter experts do not have a large affinity with IT.

    Regards,

    Rob Hooft

    On Nov 11, 2014, at 14:30 , Joy Davidson > wrote:

    Hi everyone,
    While I agree that we need to move towards automating many aspects of the data management planning process, I'd also like to suggest that this group focus on addressing some of the cultural challenges as well.
    DMPs can (and should!) evolve and this is possible using the current data management plan tools on offer. I also beleive that there could be scope to develop funder views into tools like DMPonline and DMPTool if there was a demand. However, from my experience, there doesn’t seem to be much appetite for monitoring plans at the moment - at least in the UK.
    I think this group could be instrumental in fostering a change in culture. For instance, getting some community agreement on whether HEIs should be retaining a copy of the grant application phase DMP for evidence of what was agreed in the grant. If so, should this be retained by the Research Office or the PI? Would it be given an identifer?
    We also need to identify some good practice when it comes to PIs managing and updating in-award DMPs. Who else might need to have access to these and how would it be facilitated? Researchers using DMPonline for instance can provide write access to collaborators in their own institutions and externally to help develop the plans and can provide read-only access to others who might need to know the content.
    It would also be good to try and reach some level of agreement on whether post award DMPs should be submitted as public documents to instiutional or subject based repositories and how post award DMPs should be linked to the data outputs (e.g., via the Jisc research data registry or Research Data Australia) to improve provenance. We might also need to consider who owns each version of the DMP and how long each version might need to be retained.
    All the best,
    Joy

    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/active-data-management-plans/post/scope-ad...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/46458


    Rob W.W. Hooft || Skype: robhooft || Phone: +31 6 27034319
    DTL Programme Manager Life Science Data @ Netherlands eScience Center
    Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences || http://www.dtls.nl/

  • David Giaretta's picture

    Author: David Giaretta

    Date: 11 Nov, 2014

    Hi Rob

    Thanks for this input. This supports my impression that there is a demand to be able to monitor the DMPs, especially looking a few years ahead, which I guess we have to do in the RDA.

    My assumption is that this monitoring has to be as automated as possible, and so must go beyond a textual description, and there must be supporting tools and services for both the data creators and the funders. Moreover it should be consistent with actively supporting the wider re-use of data, which fits into the “Riding the Wave” view of benefiting society as a whole.

    One of the aims of the ADMP group is to gather requirements from stakeholders such as funders but it seems to me that there has to be some view about what is likely to be possible in order to offer the stakeholders a menu from which to choose – although of course not restricting the choice to this menu, rather than only providing a blank sheet of paper.

    Regards

    ..David

    From: rob.hooft=dtls.nl@rda-groups.org [mailto:rob.hooft=dtls.nl@rda-groups.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hooft
    Sent: 11 November 2014 14:26
    To: rda-datamanagplans@rda-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [rda-datamanagplans] Scope of the ADMP group

    Joy,

    An interesting perspective. To contrast with that, I have heard that in the USA, where some experiences with DMP are a few years ahead of us here in Europe, they have seen that if there is no funder followup on the DMP it will stay a plan and it will not actually be executed (allocated money will be directed elsewhere). There is therefore a trend towards truly enforcing the execution of the DMP. This also makes it live: obviously in every project there are unforeseen circumstances, and if a deliverable can not be made because it is OBE, the DMP will need adjusting.

    For larger projects in the Life Sciences, we have had a discussion a while ago (involving Carole Goble) that these should probably have a dedicated WP for data stewardship. Having a dedicated WP led by a data expert that is held responsible for data stewardship explicitly will also ensure that the plans will stay alive. This setup is especially useful for science fields for which the subject matter experts do not have a large affinity with IT.

    Regards,

    Rob Hooft

    On Nov 11, 2014, at 14:30 , Joy Davidson wrote:

    Hi everyone,

    While I agree that we need to move towards automating many aspects of the data management planning process, I'd also like to suggest that this group focus on addressing some of the cultural challenges as well.

    DMPs can (and should!) evolve and this is possible using the current data management plan tools on offer. I also beleive that there could be scope to develop funder views into tools like DMPonline and DMPTool if there was a demand. However, from my experience, there doesn’t seem to be much appetite for monitoring plans at the moment - at least in the UK.

    I think this group could be instrumental in fostering a change in culture. For instance, getting some community agreement on whether HEIs should be retaining a copy of the grant application phase DMP for evidence of what was agreed in the grant. If so, should this be retained by the Research Office or the PI? Would it be given an identifer?

    We also need to identify some good practice when it comes to PIs managing and updating in-award DMPs. Who else might need to have access to these and how would it be facilitated? Researchers using DMPonline for instance can provide write access to collaborators in their own institutions and externally to help develop the plans and can provide read-only access to others who might need to know the content.

    It would also be good to try and reach some level of agreement on whether post award DMPs should be submitted as public documents to instiutional or subject based repositories and how post award DMPs should be linked to the data outputs (e.g., via the Jisc research data registry or Research Data Australia) to improve provenance. We might also need to consider who owns each version of the DMP and how long each version might need to be retained.

    All the best,

    Joy

    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/active-data-management-plans/post/scope-ad...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/46458

    Rob W.W. Hooft || Skype: robhooft || Phone: +31 6 27034319

    DTL Programme Manager Life Science Data @ Netherlands eScience Center

    Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences || http://www.dtls.nl/

submit a comment