A benchmarking tool developed by the DCC to assess research data infrastructure. The presentation also outlines alternative versions developed by the University of the West of England and an EPSRC-compliance version

1. CARDIO: Collaborative Assessment of
Research Data Infrastructures and Objectives
Sarah Jones
DCC, University of Glasgow
sarah.jones@glasgow.ac.uk

2. Overview of Presentation
1. Background and purpose
2. CARDIO tool
3. How CARDIO has been used

3. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

4. Background
• A tool commissioned by Jisc to integrate
elements of other RDM management tools
• Builds heavily on AIDA (Assessing Institutional
Digital Assets), re-focusing concept on RDM
• http://aida.da.ulcc.ac.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

5. CARDIO – Primary Goals
• CARDIO is a tool to assess research data
infrastructure and support
• It uses the concept of maturity, asking
different stakeholders to rate provision on
a 1-5 scale
• CARDIO is collaborative – the aim is to get
multiple viewpoints to identify
discrepancies and reach consensus

6. CARDIO – RDM Maturity
• Assess a ‘data context’ – a place where data is created
and managed (e.g. department, school, project,
funding stream, institution...)
• How well can it/does it manage its data?
• That’s dependent on:
– Finances
– Technology
– Policy and procedures
– Organisational will
– Skills…

7. Five stages of maturity
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5
ACKNOWLEDGE /
NO ACTION
ACT /
LOCALISED
CONSOLIDATE /
CO-OPERATE
INSTITUTIONALISE /
INTEGRATE
EXTERNALISE /
EMBED
Diagram courtesy of Ed Pinsent, AIDA project

8. CARDIO – Three “Legs” Concept
• Organisation: Policy, legality, mandates…
• Technology: Servers, data validation, security…
• Resources: Staffing, finance, risk…
3 leg stool model developed
by University of Cornell

9. Full coverage of CARDIO (1)
ORGANISATION
• Data ownership and management
• Data policy and procedures
• Data policy review
• Sharing of / access to research data
• Preservation and continuity of research
• Internal audit of research activities
• Monitoring and feedback of publication
• Metadata management
• Legal compliance
• IPR and rights management
• Disaster planning and continuity of research

10. Full coverage of CARDIO (2)
TECHNOLOGY
• Technological infrastructure
• Appropriate technologies
• Ensuring availability
• Managing data integrity
• Obsolescence
• Managing technological change
• Security provisions
• Security processes
• Metadata tools
• Institutional repository

11. Full coverage of CARDIO (3)
RESOURCES
• Data management costs and sustainability
• Business planning
• Technological resources allocation
• Risk management
• Transparency of resource allocation
• Sustainability of funding for RDM and preservation
• Data management skills
• Number of staff for RDM
• Staff development opportunities

12. CARDIO TOOL

13. CARDIO – Who’s Involved
• CARDIO Coordinators: those propelling the
process, mediating between…
• Infrastructural providers: providing services
to support research data management
• Researchers: interested in safeguarding
their research data, but also defined by
their responsibilities

14. CARDIO – Principal Workflow
• Individually score a range of areas within
each conceptual leg
• Collate scores and negotiate to reach a
collective consensus view
• Plan for improvements in RDM, based on
evidence, visualisations and future
recommendations

15. Stages of CARDIO

16. Providing maturity ratings

17. Assessing responses
• Visualisations reveal
various contributors’
responses
• Enables publication
of PDF report with
itemised maturity

18. HOW CARDIO HAS BEEN USED

19. CARDIO-lite: mini quiz
• Short version put together for Jisc Inform
• Asks 9 questions with A, B, C responses
• Provides a basic indication of key gaps
http://cardio.dcc.ac.uk/quiz
www.dcc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Dundee
-roadshow/Exercise-1-CARDIO-quiz.pdf

20. CARDIO workshops
• Usually conducted after the mini-quiz or some CARDIO
assessments have been done
• Allows you to present main findings and reach
consensus via discussion in groups
• Provides an opportunity to prioritise recommendations

21. UWE 2 page matrix
• 2 page matrix which is easy
to give out in workshops or
meetings
• Quick to fill in by circling
statement you agree with
• Helped UWE begin policy
discussions and start to
develop and RDM strategy
Available to download at:
www1.uwe.ac.uk/library/usingthelibrary/servicesforresearchers/datamanagement/man
agingresearchdata/projectoutputs/phase1.aspx

22. EPSRC profile of CARDIO
• Adapts the UWE matrix and re-works it in line
with the nine expectations of EPSRC
• Useful for benchmarking progress towards the
EPSRC roadmap deadline of May 2015
• www.dcc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/events
/EPSRC-workshop/CARDIO_matrix_EPSRC.pdf

23. Benefits of CARDIO
• Good in conjunction with DAF
– DAF more focused on researcher practice
– CARDIO assesses infrastructure and support provision
• A less resource-intensive methodology to implement
• Useful as a benchmark to repeat and demonstrate
organisational progress and change

24. Tips on implementation
• People don’t always want to use online tools –
sometimes they desire F2F interactions
• Could blend the different approaches
• Make sure you get multiple viewpoints as
there will inevitably be differences of opinion

25. Discussion
• Could you see a use for CARDIO at Reading?
• What infrastructure and services do you
already have in place to support RDM?
• What do you think the biggest gaps are?