• University of Bath Data Management Plan Template
• Writing your data management plan : University of Bath DMP template guidance

We used an iterative method to develop these documents, going back and forth between members of the project team and a number of researchers to produce a template that is functional and fills the needs of researchers as well as the institution and our funders. Since most other UK funders already provide a template, we focused on the needs of our EPSRC-funded researchers, but drew heavily on the policies and templates of all the other RCUK funders, as well as the DCC Checklist for a Data Management Plan.

The template

The template itself is available in two versions: a blank version, and one with suggested possible answers. The latter was developed based on feedback from researchers (who wanted a simple way to get started on a DMP) and could potentially be used in a multiple-choice fashion to quickly draft a DMP which covers the full range of issues.

We suggest a two-stage process to developing a data management plan using the institutional template:

1. Pre-award: when applying for funding, use the multiple-choice template to quickly produce a basic DMP and identify resources which may need to be included in the project budget;
2. Post-award: after funding has been granted, review the initial template and fill in further details as appropriate for the project in question — at this point issues should be referred to the relevant University support department (e.g. computer services) or third-party body (e.g. data archives).

This will ensure that all potential issues are surfaced at an early stage, while allowing the researchers to focus on the more important scientific aspects of the bid. By building up the DMP in several stages, each of which is itself only a small step, we hope to lower the barrier to entry for data management planning.

The guidance

The guidance document accompanying the template serves two purposes:

1. To give advice on how each question should be answered; and
2. To explain why each question is important.

Our intention is to help researchers make informed decisions about both what should go into their DMP and what they can leave out if it does not apply to them. We also intend this document to signpost specific infrastructure and support services that researchers may not be fully aware of. We have therefore taken care to highlight relevant University support services and policies for each question.

Future work

We have begun work on specialised versions of the template to fulfil particular sets of requirements, by narrowing down the questions asked and giving additional guidance where appropriate.

All of the funders we work with have slightly different requirements and emphases for data management plans, so by tailoring our own template to suit the needs of each funder (e.g. by being selective about the questions that are included), we hope to be able to maintain a single set of guidance which will apply to all funders.

We are also developing a version of the template to help researchers develop a standing research data policy for their research group or department. We hope to implement a mechanism to allow these local policies to be published on the web, so that each project DMP can focus on project-specific issues and simply refer to the standing policy anything more generic.

Many universities are still in the process of enhancing and formalising strategies for research data management at this time, so this paper may contribute to planning for future assessment exercises beyond REF2014, as well as business cases for further development of strategies and procedures for research data in research-intensive universities.
With the results from the REF determining institutional quality-related (QR) funding allocations (just over £1.3 billion in 2012/13), the research element of QR funding is one of the key funding streams for research in UK universities. Support for future assessment exercises is therefore a potential element in any business case for research data management.

The Research Data Management and REF2014 document can be downloaded in Word or PDF formats from: http://opus.bath.ac.uk/35518/.

The REF guidance document follows on from the previous release of the summary stakeholder benefits analysis (based on the KRDS Benefits Framework) from the Research Data Management business case for the University of Bath. The stakeholder benefits analysis is also still available separately to download in PDF format from http://opus.bath.ac.uk/32509.

The Research360 project is funded by Jisc and is developing the technical and human infrastructure for research data management at the University of Bath, as an exemplar research-intensive university.

The benefits summary covers key stakeholder groups both within the university community (academic staff and researchers, students, professional services and the institution) and for external partners (industry and commerce, public and voluntary sectors, government and society).

The stakeholder benefits were developed by Neil Beagrie at Charles Beagrie Ltd, in collaboration with members of the Research360 and REDm-MED project teams. Helpful insight and feedback were also gathered from researchers working in industry.

You can read more about the stakeholder benefits analysis, how they can be used and how they were developed in the accompanying UKOLN news feature.

The full post is on my personal blog here.

The full post is on my personal blog here.

The full post is on my personal blog here.

The full post is on my personal blog here.

The full post is on my personal blog here.

Responsibility for responding to the EPSRC’s expectations – the roadmap setting out how compliance would be achieved – lay with the University’s Research Data Steering Group (RDSG), a work group set up in January 2011 to advise on Research Data Management (RDM) across the institution. There is considerable overlap between members of the RDSG and the Research360 project team and as such, the Roadmap for EPSRC was developed alongside Research360 project work on a longer term RDM strategy.

We are now able to share the University of Bath Roadmap for EPSRC: Compliance with Research Data Management Expectations. We also wish to share the process that we went through to develop and obtain approval for our Roadmap, positive feedback that we have received and to tell you what we intend to do next.

How the Roadmap was developed

As part of the Research360 project we used Monash University’s “Research Data Management Strategy and Strategic Plan 2012-2015″ as a blueprint, from which we developed our own draft strategy and implementation plan. This original strategy consisted of a series of objectives and activities aligned with a number of themes, which in turn demonstrated how management of research data contributes to existing, long term University strategies.

We then turned our attention to the EPSRC’s nine expectations. Following a helpful series of blog posts by the DCC, and based on our experiences over the first few months of Research360, we started by identifying what the University of Bath is already doing to meet the expectations. We then re-structured the proposed objectives and activities from our draft strategy so that they were aligned with the EPSRC’s expectations.

Importantly, this approach meant that whilst fulfilling the requirements of the EPSRC, our proposed activities were primarily focused on building a sustainable infrastructure that will meet the data management needs of the University.

Getting the Roadmap approved

Once approved by the RDSG, we sent the Roadmap for EPSRC to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (PVC) for Research. Working with the PVC Research was critical to the successful development of the Roadmap and we are extremely grateful for Professor Millar’s support. The PVC Research oversees the RDSG and is Chair of the Research360 Steering Group. As such, she already had a strong awareness of Research Data Management activities at Bath, and was able to provide invaluable guidance and a viewpoint from senior management from within the institution.

In order to meet the EPSRC’s 1^st May 2012 deadline, we did not have time to progress the Roadmap through the normal approval process. We therefore submitted the Roadmap directly to the Vice-Chancellor’s Group (VCG). Despite positive comments from the VCG, they were not able to approve the first draft of the Roadmap. This provided us with an opportunity to incorporate their comments – mainly that we had been a little too ambitious in our aims and deadlines – before a resubmission of the Roadmap at the following VCG meeting, where the Roadmap was finally approved.

Submission to EPSRC and encouraging feedback

The University of Bath Roadmap for EPSRC: Compliance with Research Data Management Expectations was submitted by the Vice-Chancellor to EPSRC on 1^st May 2012. We have since received some extremely encouraging feedback: Ben Ryan, Senior Evaluation Manager, EPSRC, congratulated Bath on the document, and described it as “an excellent example of an appropriate response”. He stated that the Roadmap “fully meets our needs for assurance that the University is taking our policy framework on research data seriously”. Further comments from Ben Ryan; from Professor Millar, the PVC Research; and Dr Liz Lyon, Director of UKOLN and one of the Roadmap’s authors, can be read in a news item about our Roadmap for EPSRC on the University of Bath website.

Building on the Roadmap – what we will do next

Following approval by the VCG, we have been able to present the Roadmap at a number of other relevant committees, to all major stakeholders and to those who will share responsibility for implementing the Roadmap. Over the next few months, we will be working closely with these stakeholders to explain RDM and its benefits in more detail, and to address any concerns that have been raised about the challenging cultural changes that lie ahead.

Now that the RDSG’s Roadmap for EPSRC has been approved, Research360 will continue to work on the developing the long term institutional RDM Strategy. The activities and objectives in the Roadmap for EPSRC will form the basis of a dynamic RDM Operational Plan, which will accompany the RDM Strategy as a Research360 project deliverable. We will also continue to work on the supporting Institutional RDM Business Case. These three documents will then undergo a longer review and approval process, starting to progress through the relevant committees in the autumn.

My background includes work on a large number of JISC projects, from the elib phase 2 programme in 1996, based at the London School of Economics from 1998 to 2011. My work there includes a lot of Identity Management, including the technical evaluation of Shibboleth for JISC in 2001 which led to its adoption in the UK HE community and writing parts of the Identity Management Toolkit published in 2010 and currently being updated (which is what I’m doing when not working on the Research360 project), as well as lots of work on repositories, setting them up for research papers, shared document storage for project teams, and for digital archives for the LSE Library. Since leaving the LSE I have been working as an IT consultant for several clients in academia. I’ve also worked at the University of Ulster, for an Internet service provider, and carried out research in mathematical logic.