A Capability Maturity Model for Research Data Management
CMM for RDM » 0. Introduction » 0.3 Research Data Management Maturity Levels
Last modified by Arden Kirkland on 2014/06/30 09:36
From version 74.3
edited by Jian Qin
on 2014/03/17 20:20
To version 75.1
edited by Jian Qin
on 2014/03/17 20:24
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Content changes

... ... @@ -53,13 +53,13 @@
53 53
54 54 This is not to say that the outputs of organizations with processes at low levels of maturity are necessarily of low quality, only that the quality of their future outputs is not predictable. Unstructured, ad hoc processes become less workable when producing a product on a large scale. Process improvement models offer a route to managing the increasingly large scale demands of emerging research data contexts.
55 55
56 -**//ANDS Capability Maturity Guide. //**(% style="font-size: 14px;" %)The Australian National Data Service (ANDS) uses the CMM model in their Research Data Management Framework Capability Maturity Guide: [[(%%)http:~~/~~/ands.org.au/guides/dmframework/dmf-capability-maturity-guide.html>>url:http://ands.org.au/guides/dmframework/dmf-capability-maturity-guide.html||rel="__blank" style="font-size: 14px;"]](% style="font-size: 14px;" %) There is a chart depicting the ANDS application of CMM to RDM here: [[(%%)http:~~/~~/ands.org.au/assets/images/guides/dmf-capability-maturity-guide.png>>url:http://ands.org.au/assets/images/guides/dmf-capability-maturity-guide.png||rel="__blank" style="font-size: 14px;"]]
56 +**//ANDS Capability Maturity Guide. //**The Australian National Data Service (ANDS) uses the CMM model in their Research Data Management Framework Capability Maturity Guide: [[(%%)http:~~/~~/ands.org.au/guides/dmframework/dmf-capability-maturity-guide.html>>url:http://ands.org.au/guides/dmframework/dmf-capability-maturity-guide.html||rel="__blank" style="font-size: 14px;"]](% style="font-size: 14px;" %) There is a chart depicting the ANDS application of CMM to RDM here: [[(%%)http:~~/~~/ands.org.au/assets/images/guides/dmf-capability-maturity-guide.png>>url:http://ands.org.au/assets/images/guides/dmf-capability-maturity-guide.png||rel="__blank" style="font-size: 14px;"]]
57 57
58 58 The ANDS divides RDM into four content categories that emphasize organizational infrastructure, but in a different way than in the CMM developed by Watts Humphrey and the Software Engineering Institute. ANDS makes organizational policies and procedures a practice area in itself. In the original CMM policies and procedures are a central feature of each practice area. For ANDS level 2 is characterized by the development and harmonization of policies and procedures, and level 3 is characterized by their promulgation and behavioral adoption. In the original CMM that order is reversed: at level 2 process discipline helps ensure that desirable practices are retained during times of stress, making those practices repeatable but not yet defined at an organizational level; standardization of organizational processes occurs at level 3. The CMM structure does not allow for skipping levels, so an organization would not be advised to standardize processes across the organization for practices that had not yet been established.
59 59
60 60 The ANDS framework maps RDM practices to levels of maturity differently from DMVitals. Overall, ANDS sets the bar higher in that it assesses maturity in terms of increasing levels of institutionalization of best practices. Though on a few content points they are less strict than DMVitals. For example, when it comes to the practice area of metadata management ANDS does not differentiate between use of informal and authoritative/community metadata standards. In our framework a community that uses a shared, authoritative metadata standard has a higher level of maturity than one that does not.
61 61
62 -**//Capability for Data-Intensive Research.//** (% style="font-size: 14px;" %)Lyon et al.'s work ([[(%%)2012>>||anchor="Lyon" style="font-size: 14px;"]](% style="font-size: 14px;" %)) on behalf of Microsoft Research Connections and UKOLN Informatics focuses not on the maturity of data management practices per se, but looks more broadly at research community capability for data-intensive research. The Community Capability Model website offers a template with a five-tiered rubric for assessing research culture maturity, including quality and validation frameworks: [[(%%)http:~~/~~/communitymodel.sharepoint.com/Pages/default.aspx>>url:http://communitymodel.sharepoint.com/Pages/default.aspx||rel="__blank" style="font-size: 14px;"]]
62 +**//Capability for Data-Intensive Research.//** Lyon et al.'s work ([[(%%)2012>>||anchor="Lyon" style="font-size: 14px;"]] on behalf of Microsoft Research Connections and UKOLN Informatics focuses not on the maturity of data management practices per se, but looks more broadly at research community capability for data-intensive research. The Community Capability Model website offers a template with a five-tiered rubric for assessing research culture maturity, including quality and validation frameworks: [[(%%)http:~~/~~/communitymodel.sharepoint.com/Pages/default.aspx>>url:http://communitymodel.sharepoint.com/Pages/default.aspx||rel="__blank" style="font-size: 14px;"]]
63 63
64 64 |= |=Level |=Research Community Quality and Validation Framework
65 65 |1|Nominal Activity| Lightweight self-review of data. Results not reproducible.
... ... @@ -75,21 +75,21 @@
75 75
76 76 DAF is impressive. It has a management information systems feel (e.g. they provide formulas for calculating how many hours an audit will take; their angle on RDM is that it's about leveraging assets; it presumes a high degree of centralized control~-~-one recommended approach is to go through interviewee drives to ID which collections of data are digital assets~-~-they apparently did this at universities in the UK). Their survey and interview instruments are good. I don't believe DAF is being updated. The version of the toolkit I downloaded this year is dated 2009.
77 77
78 -(% style="font-size: 14px;" %)Of the DCC projects CARDIO looks the most active.
78 +Of the DCC projects CARDIO looks the most active.
79 79
80 -(% style="font-size: 14px;" %)-cf
80 +-cf
81 81
82 82 ~*~*~*~*~*~**
83 83
84 -**//CARDIO.//** (% style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; color: rgb(64, 64, 64);" %)The Digital Curation Centre's Collaborative Assessment of Research Data Infrastructure and Objectives Access (CARDIO) [[(%%)http:~~/~~/cardio.dcc.ac.uk/ >>url:http://cardio.dcc.ac.uk/||rel="__blank" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em;"]](% style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; color: rgb(64, 64, 64);" %)is a tool for assessing institutional readiness for managing research data. It is a benchmarking tool for strategy development for application at the departmental or research group level. CARDIO is oriented toward external assessment more than self-assessment. CARDIO uses features from other digital curation tools, such as the maturity model approach from Assessing Institutional Digital Assets (AIDA) [[(%%)http:~~/~~/aida.da.ulcc.ac.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_Page>>url:http://aida.da.ulcc.ac.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_Page||rel="__blank" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em;"]]
84 +**//CARDIO.//** (% style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; color: rgb(64, 64, 64);" %)The Digital Curation Centre's Collaborative Assessment of Research Data Infrastructure and Objectives Access (CARDIO) [[(%%)http:~~/~~/cardio.dcc.ac.uk/ >>url:http://cardio.dcc.ac.uk/||rel="__blank"]]is a tool for assessing institutional readiness for managing research data. It is a benchmarking tool for strategy development for application at the departmental or research group level. CARDIO is oriented toward external assessment more than self-assessment. CARDIO uses features from other digital curation tools, such as the maturity model approach from Assessing Institutional Digital Assets (AIDA) [[(%%)http:~~/~~/aida.da.ulcc.ac.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_Page>>url:http://aida.da.ulcc.ac.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_Page||rel="__blank"]]
85 85
86 -**//Data Asset Framework.//** (% style="font-size: 14px;" %)The Digital Curation Centre's Digital Asset Framework (DAF) [[(%%)http:~~/~~/www.data-audit.eu/index.html>>url:http://www.data-audit.eu/index.html||rel="__blank" style="font-size: 14px;"]](% style="font-size: 14px;" %) is methodology for assessing research data management at higher education institutions. DAF audits can be at departmental or unit levels, or of larger entities. Risk management and facilitation of opportunities for data reuse are emphasized. The DAF toolkit provides survey and interview instruments information professionals use to carry out audits based on information gathered from stakeholders (e.g. administration, IT, researchers).
86 +**//Data Asset Framework.//** The Digital Curation Centre's Digital Asset Framework (DAF) [[(%%)http:~~/~~/www.data-audit.eu/index.html>>url:http://www.data-audit.eu/index.html||rel="__blank" style="font-size: 14px;"]] is methodology for assessing research data management at higher education institutions. DAF audits can be at departmental or unit levels, or of larger entities. Risk management and facilitation of opportunities for data reuse are emphasized. The DAF toolkit provides survey and interview instruments information professionals use to carry out audits based on information gathered from stakeholders (e.g. administration, IT, researchers).
87 87
88 -**//DRAMBORA. //**(% style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; color: rgb(64, 64, 64);" %)Digital Repository Audit Method Based on Risk Assessment (DRAMBORA) [[(%%)http:~~/~~/www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/repository-audit-and-assessment/drambora>>url:http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/repository-audit-and-assessment/drambora||rel="__blank" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em;"]](% style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; color: rgb(64, 64, 64);" %) is a repository risk assessment and quality assessment self-audit toolkit available from the Digital Curation Centre: [[(%%)http:~~/~~/www.repositoryaudit.eu/download/>>url:http://www.repositoryaudit.eu/download/||rel="__blank" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em;"]]
88 +**//DRAMBORA. //**Digital Repository Audit Method Based on Risk Assessment (DRAMBORA) [[(%%)http:~~/~~/www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/repository-audit-and-assessment/drambora>>url:http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/repository-audit-and-assessment/drambora||rel="__blank"]] is a repository risk assessment and quality assessment self-audit toolkit available from the Digital Curation Centre: [[(%%)http:~~/~~/www.repositoryaudit.eu/download/>>url:http://www.repositoryaudit.eu/download/||rel="__blank"]]
89 89
90 -//**Data Seal of Approval.**// (% style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; color: rgb(64, 64, 64);" %)Data Seal of Approval (DSA) is a repository self-assessment framework with a peer-review component: [[(%%)http:~~/~~/datasealofapproval.org/en/>>url:http://datasealofapproval.org/en/||rel="__blank" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em;"]]
90 +//**Data Seal of Approval.**// (% style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; color: rgb(64, 64, 64);" %)Data Seal of Approval (DSA) is a repository self-assessment framework with a peer-review component: [[(%%)http:~~/~~/datasealofapproval.org/en/>>url:http://datasealofapproval.org/en/||rel="__blank"]]
91 91
92 -**//ISO 27000 audits.//** (% style="font-size: 14px;" %)ISO 27000 is an international standard for security management systems. There are tools that facilitate implementation of ISO 27000 audits.
92 +**//ISO 27000 audits.//** ISO 27000 is an international standard for security management systems. There are tools that facilitate implementation of ISO 27000 audits.
93 93
94 94
95 95 == References ==

XWiki Enterprise 5.1-milestone-1 - Documentation